Vastavayi Sandhya Rani vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1409 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.6951 OF 2020

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner - owner of vehicle under

Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to the

following relief:

"....pleased to relax the condition in order dated 28.10.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.665/2020 in S.C. No.21 of 2020 on the file of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, that the petitioner/Owner of the property shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakh rupees only) with two sureties of Rs.5 lakhs each on property valuation of Gram Panchayat or that the petitioner/Owner of the property shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakh rupees only) with one surety of Rs.5 lakhs and pass any such other order or orders...."

2. Heard Mr. Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Senior Standing

Counsel for NCB, Hyderabad.

3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner

herein is wife of accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.21 of 2020 on the

file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The offence

alleged against him under Sections - 8 (c) read with 22 (c), 28 and 29

of the NDPS Act. The vehicle was seized by the police while

allegedly transporting 9.92 kilograms of Alprazolam.

KL,J Crl.P. No.6951 of 2020

4. The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the subject

vehicle i.e., Hyundai Creta Car bearing registration No.TS 08FQ

1189, filed an application under Section - 451 read with 457 of

Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.665 of 2020 seeking interim custody of the

vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.10.2020,

granted interim custody of the said vehicle on certain conditions

including the condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal

bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) with one surety for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the Intelligence Officer, NCB,

Hyderabad Sub Zone. The petitioner filed the present petition on the

ground that the said condition imposed by the Court below is on

higher side and the petitioner herein being a house wife is not in a

position to furnish the said surety.

5. Mr. G. Veera Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the subject vehicle was seized on 13.05.2019 and it is with

the respondent's officials and, therefore, the same is exposed to sun

and rain. The petitioner is using the said vehicle for domestic use and,

therefore, he sought to release the said vehicle by reducing the

condition imposed by the Court below.

6. The petitioner herein is not an accused in the above case.

Her husband is an accused. There is no dispute that she is owner of

the seized vehicle. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent opposed for return of the vehicle,

the learned Sessions Judge considering all the said aspects, granted KL,J Crl.P. No.6951 of 2020

interim custody of the seized vehicle. The main contention of the

petitioner herein is that he is unable to furnish a cash surety for

Rs.10,00,000/-, and that he is able to furnish two sureties for

Rs.5,00,000/- each on property valuation of Gram Panchayat.

7. In Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of bail which

includes with or without sureties, amount of bond Court should insist

upon and propriety of insisting that surety be from the same district

etc. Relying on the said judgment and other judgments of the Apex

Court as all other High Courts, this Court also extensively dealt with

the issue in relation to 'furnishing of surety' in Ayush Mahendra v.

the State of Telangana2.

8. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements of

law, and in the said circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the

present petition and also considering the fact that the learned Sessions

Judge has considered the request for return of the vehicle towards

interim custody, according to this Court, imposition of a condition to

execute a bond for Rs.10.00 lakhs with one surety for a like sum is on

higher side and, therefore, the said condition can be modified.

9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed

modifying condition No.1 in paragraph No.9 of the order, dated

. (1978) 4 SCC 47

. I.A. No.1 of 2020 in Crl.P. No.5782 of 2020, decided on 05.01.2021.

KL,J Crl.P. No.6951 of 2020

28.10.2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No.665 of 2020 in S.C. No.21 of 2020, to the

effect that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with one surety for a like

sum, instead of the petitioner executing a personal bond for

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) with one surety for a like

sum to the satisfaction of Intelligence Officer, NCB, Hyderabad Sub

Zone. However, the other conditions imposed by the learned Sessions

Judge shall remain unaltered.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

criminal petition shall stand closed.

________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J 29th April, 2021 Mgr