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 NOs.44800-801/2017(GM-Res) BETWEEN:
1. MR.SANTOSH VIJAY S/O MICHEL RASQUINHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.2-11 KALPANE HOUSE,BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MOHAMMED SHAFI S/O MOIDINABBA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT ALAKE HOUSE ADOOR VILLAGE MANGALURU TALUK.
2. MR.HANEEF SHEIK A.K., S/O SHEKABBA A K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KOTIPAL HOUSE ADDOOR POST AND VILLAGE MANGALURU TALUK, D.K REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR.HAMAMMED NAWFAL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM,R/AT DOOR NO.2-30 GUNDA KUMERU ;HOUSE KORIYANGALA VILLAGE POLALI POST MANGALURU TALUK – 575 003. …Petitioners (By Sri Vishwajith Shetty, S, Adv.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER BANTWALA RURAL POLICE STATION BANTWALA TALUK D.K.,MANGALURU – 560 001. Respondent (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to relax/modify the condition no.1 in Crl.Misc.No.921/2017 and Crl.Misc.No.922/2017 by the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Mangaluru vide its order dated 13.09.2017 vide Annexures B and D in so far ass it relates to direct the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in favour of the jurisdictional Court.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in “B” Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri Vishwajith Shetty S, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP, appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. By consent of both parties, these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order though listed for preliminary hearing.
3. Petitioners represented by their GPA Holder, filed separate applications under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of Tipper Lorry bearing registration Nos. KA-22- A-9534 and KA-19-AB-5745 and KA-19-D-4844 before the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. After considering said applications, learned Prl. Sessions Judge by order dated 13.9.2017 allowed the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and ordered for release of said vehicles conditionally, namely petitioners were not only directed to execute an indemnity bond of Rs.4,00,000/- each and additional conditions also came to be imposed. In so far as imposition of condition directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantees, they are before this Court assailing the same, contending inter alia that under similar circumstances this Court had only restricted the condition to furnish indemnity bond by the applicants and had set aside the condition of imposing that petitioners should furnish bank guarantee.
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 in 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 therein to furnish the indemnity bond with one surety, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners herein would also be entitled for similar relief. In view of the fact that jurisdictional Sessions Court itself has imposed the condition of directing the petitioners to furnish indemnity bond of Rs.4,00,000/- each with one surety, this Court is of the considered view that it would suffice. However, additionally it may be ordered that in the event of the said vehicles are found plying for the purpose of carrying out the activity similar to the one alleged or the vehicles in question are found to be involved in similar offence, the indemnity bond executed by the petitioners shall stand forfeited to State and vehicles in question shall be confiscated to State. Subject to same and other conditions as imposed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Case. Nos.921/2017 and 922/2017 dated 13.09.2017 (Annexures-B and C) remaining, namely 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 Petitions stand allowed.
brn SD/- JUDGE