Telangana High Court
Devabhaktini Murali vs The State Of Telangana on 10 June, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4331 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.246 of
2021 in Crime No.82 of 2021 dated 03-05-2021 on the file of the
Junior Civil Judge at Nidamanoor to the extent of imposing a
condition of furnishing of one surety of Rs.28.00 lakhs for interim
custody of the vehicle bearing No.TS 05 UC 6166 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
respondent No.1 - State.
3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner
herein is owner of Lorry bearing registration No.TS 05 UC 6166, and
respondent No.2 - accused is its driver. The said vehicle was seized
by the police of Nidamanoor Police Station in Crime No.82 of 2021
registered for the offences under Sections - 304-II and 307 of IPC
against respondent No.2 - accused alleging that on 02.04.2021 at
about 17:30 hours respondent No.2 was proceeding from Miryalaguda
to Haliya in the lorry driven by him in a rash and negligent manner in
drunken condition and when it reached Nidmanoor he dashed a
KL,J
Crl.P. No.4331 of 2021
motorcycle coming from opposite direction, and as a result, two
persons died and five persons received severe injuries of which two
persons also died while undergoing treatment.
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.246 of 2021 seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The
Magistrate vide order dated 03.05.2021 granted interim custody of the
said vehicle on certain conditions including the condition that the
petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
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
the petitioner herein 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 on 19.04.2021. The petitioner used to
engage the said vehicle for transport of goods and it is his
only source of income. The petitioner has nothing to do with the
alleged offence. In view of the seizure of the said vehicle,
the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain and the condition of the vehicle
would be deteriorating day by day. He would further submit that the
petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss if
KL,J
Crl.P. No.4331 of 2021
the vehicle is not given as an interim custody to him by reducing the
amount imposed by the Court below.
6. 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 he is unable to
furnish a bond for Rs.28,00,000/- with one surety and that he is able to
furnish only for Rs.50,000/- with one surety.
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 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.
8. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements of law,
and in the said circumstances narrated by the petitioner in the present
petition and also considering the fact that the Magistrate has
considered the request for return of the vehicle as interim custody,
. (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.4331 of 2021
according to this Court, imposition of a condition to execute a bond
for Rs.28.00 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 the order dated 03.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P. No.246 of
2021 in Crime No.82 of 2021 by the Junior Civil Judge at
Nidamanoor to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for like
sum in place of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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
10th June, 2021
Mgr
