IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.45748/2017(GM-Res) BETWEEN:
AYUB PASHA S/O RAZAK PASHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A # 4/22 NEAR TIPPU MASJID GALIPURA EXTENSION CHAMARAJNAGAR TOWN – 571313.
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER SYED FURKHAN S/O SYED IQBAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A 5/130 BEHIND JOHARA MASJID AHAMMED NAGARA MOHALLA CHAMARAJNAGAR TOWN – 571313. …Petitioner (By Sri Manjunath N D, Adv. ) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TERAKANAMBI POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST: 571111 REP BY SPP (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) AT BENGALURU: 560001. ..Respondent (By Sri S Rachaiah, HCGP) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the condition no.1 (that is the application shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/- for one year and it is to be renewed from time to time till disposal of the case) put as per the order dated 28.9.2017 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara in Crl.R.P.No.194/2017 vide Annexure E.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri N.D. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP, appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. By consent of learned Advocates, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order though listed for preliminary hearing.
3. Petitioner through his GPA holder filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of lorry bearing registration No. KA-34-5851 before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet. After considering the application, learned Addl. Civil Judge by order dated 5.9.2017 rejected said application.
Being aggrieved by said order, petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 194/2017. The learned Sessions Judge while allowing the Revision Petition and the application filed by the petitioners which had been filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. ordered for release of said vehicle conditionally, namely petitioner was not only directed to execute an indemnity bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum and additional conditions came to be imposed. In so far as the imposition of condition directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee petitioner is before this Court assailing the same, contending inter alia that under similar circumstances this Court had only directed the applicant to furnish indemnity bond and had set aside the condition imposed for furnishing the bank guarantee. Hence, petitioner is seeking for similar order being passed.
4. Learned HCGP would also not dispute this fact.
5. Having regard to the fact that this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2387/2017 disposed of on 20.3.2017 and also Criminal Petition No. 6040/2017 disposed of on 18.8.2017 had relaxed the condition in so far as furnishing of bank guarantee is concerned and had directed the release of the vehicle by directing the applicant to furnish the indemnity bond with one surety, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. In view of the fact that jurisdictional Sessions Court itself has imposed the condition of directing the petitioner to furnish indemnity bond of Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety, this Court is of the considered view that it would suffice. However, additionally it may be ordered that in the eventdd the said vehicle is found plying for the purpose of carrying out the activity similar to the one alleged or the vehicle in question is found to be involved in similar offence, the indemnity bond executed by the petitioner shall stand forfeited to State and vehicle in question shall be confiscated to State. Subject to same, other conditions as imposed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.194/2017 dated 28.9.2017 (Annexure-E) remaining, condition No.1 imposed by Sessions Court would stand set aside and in substitution to the same, it is ordered as under:
“It is further directed that in the event of the vehicles in question are found to be involved in similar offence, the indemnity bond executed by the petitioners shall stand forfeited and the vehicles shall stand confiscated to the State”.
Accordingly, Writ Petition stand allowed.
brn SD/- JUDGE