Telangana High Court
Sri Veerabadhra Rao Sunkara, vs The State Of Telangana on 28 July, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5824 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - owner
of Crime Vehicle under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, seeking following relief:
"....pleased to modify the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.309 of
2021 in Crime No.213 of 2021 dated 23.07.2021 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Banswada to the extent of
imposing a condition of furnishing of personal bond of Rs.8.00
lakhs with one surety for interim custody of the vehicle bearing
No.AP 16 TH 4443 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other
or further order...."
2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein is
the owner of Lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TH 4443, and
one Hannu Phakir is its driver, who is the accused in the crime. The
said vehicle was seized by the police of Banswada Police Station in
Crime No.213 of 2021 registered for the offences under Section 379
of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act against the accused alleging that on 03.07.2021 at about
1400 hours, when the Police Banswada patrolling, they found that the
accused illegally transporting sand in the lorry from Birkoor Manjeera
River to Hanmajipet.
2 KL,J
Crl.P.No.5824 of 2021
4. The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the said lorry
filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.
No.309 of 2021 seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The
Magistrate, vide order, dated 23.07.2021, granted interim custody of
the said vehicle on certain conditions including the condition that the
petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakhs Only) with one surety. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner filed the present petition to modify the said order to the
extent of reducing the amount on the ground that imposition of
condition for such amount by the Court below is on higher side and he
is not in a position to furnish the surety for such huge amount.
5. Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
submit that the subject vehicle was seized by the police and deposited
the same before the Magistrate, vide CPR No.175 of 2021. The
petitioner used to engage the said vehicle for transport of goods and it
is his only the source of income. The petitioner has nothing to do
with the alleged offence. If the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain, its
condition would be deteriorating day-by-day. He would further
submit that the petitioner would be put to great hardship and
irreparable loss if the vehicle is not given to him as an interim custody
by reducing the amount imposed by the Court below.
6. Referring to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 19.02.2015, sand policy
order dated 14.07.2021 in W.P.No.15986 of 2021, proceedings dated
17.07.2021 of the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Banswada
3 KL,J
Crl.P.No.5824 of 2021
Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
learned Magistrate did not consider the same.
7. The petitioner herein is not an accused and his driver is an
accused in the above case. There is no dispute that the petitioner is
owner of the seized vehicle. The Magistrate considering all the said
aspects granted interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner.
The main contention of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is
unable to furnish a bond for Rs.8,00,000/- with one surety and that the
petitioner is able to furnish only for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety.
8. 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 should be from the same
district etc. Relying on the said judgment and other judgments of the
Apex Court as well as 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.
9. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of law, in
the said circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the present petition
discussion supra and also considering the fact that the Magistrate has
considered the request for return of the vehicle as interim custody,
according to this Court, imposition of a condition to execute a bond
. (1978) 4 SCC 47
. I.A. No.1 of 2020 in Crl.P. No.5782 of 2020, decided on 05.01.2021.
4 KL,J
Crl.P.No.5824 of 2021
for Rs.8.00 lakhs with one surety for a like sum is on higher side and,
therefore, the said condition can be modified.
10. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed
modifying the order, dated 23.07.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.309 of
2021 in Crime No.213 of 2021 by the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Banswada, to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for like
sum in place of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only). However,
the other conditions imposed by the Magistrate shall remain unaltered.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
criminal petition shall stand closed.
________________
K.LAKSHMAN, J
28th July, 2021
mar
