Brief Facts
- The Petitioner was accused under Section 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. During the investigation, the police seized petitioner’s car.
- The petitioner moved an application for the vehicle’s release, but the Ld. ACJM Court dismissed the same observing that the vehicle was bought with investor funds and was seized as evidence.
- The petitioner filed a revision petition which was allowed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge observing that the vehicle was bought with a loan and if the vehicle is allowed to be confiscated during the trial the utility will deteriorate with time. the petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.6 lacks for the car along with Supurdginama and Jamanatnama.
- The petitioner, being aggrieved by the conditions imposed, approached the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the imposition of condition to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.6 lacks to release the vehicle in addition to imposition of condition to furnish Supurdginama’ and ‘Jamanatnama’ are justified?
Held
- The court allowed the petition and set aside the condition to furnish bank guarantee as imposed by the Ld. Sessions Court.
- The Petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerla V.A.Ali, (2019) 14 SCC 800, and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court, delivered in case of Ramesh Kumar V. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 799, wherein imposition of such conditions for release of vehicle was found to be erroneous.
- Revisional Court has not assigned any justified reasons to impose the additional and special condition to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.6 lac, apart from submitting ‘Supurdginama’ and ‘Jamanatnama’ by the petitioner for the same worth to release the vehicle to the petitioner. It is clear that vehicle has been ordered to be released by the Revisional Court only on an interim custody to the petitioner during the course of trial that too after putting the condition to furnish the ‘Supurdginama’ and ‘Jamanatnama’ to Rs. 6 lac; the petitioner shall not transfer/alienate the vehicle, the petitioner shall surrender the vehicle as and when warranted by the Court, in the light of such terms and conditions, imposition of furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs.6 lac in facts and circumstances of the present case, seems to be onerous and unjustified condition.
Relevant Para No.
5, 7