IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. H.D. KUMARA S/O DEVARAJEGOWDA REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER BY NAME C.M. NAGESH S/O MOGANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O CHAVADAGHATTA VILALGE SHILANERE HOBLI KRISHNAPET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 426.
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE) AND:
... PETITIONER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY KRISHNARAJAPET TOWN P.S. MANDYA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED:12.06.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT K.R.PET IN CRIME NO.221/2018 ON THE APPLICATION U/S.457 OF CRPC AND MODIFY THE CONDITION NO.1 BY IMPOSING THE FRESH SURETY INSTED OF BANK GUARANTEE AND RELEASE THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-37-A-461 TO THE PETITIONER CUSTODY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused case papers.
2. On the basis of credible information received on 27.05.2018 at about 4.30 p.m. one Sri.H.S.Venkatesh, Police Sub-Inspector, K.R.Pet Town Police along with his officials went near T.B.Circle and found that a lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-A-461 was coming from Honnenahalli side by loading sand and on seeing the police, driver of the said lorry stopped the vehicle and ran away from the spot and thereafter, said vehicle came to be seized and a suo-moto case has been registered in Crime No.221/2018 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Sections 3, 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘Rules’) and Section 379 of IPC. Thus, vehicle has been seized even before filing of the complaint.
3. Prima facie, seizure of vehicle is bad in law.
Learned trial Judge has directed interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions and one such condition imposed is, furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.7,49,000/-.
4. Since seizure of the vehicle is prior to filing of the complaint and same being illegal, this Court by following earlier decisions has held that unless there are special reasons, stringent condition should not be imposed vide SHRI SHAMBULINGAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Crl.P.No.100868/2018 decided on 25.04.2018) .
5. In these circumstances, condition No.(1) imposed by the learned trial Judge by order dated 12.06.2018 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.7,94,000/- requires to be relaxed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Condition No.(1) imposed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet, in Crime No.221/2018, is hereby relaxed and it is ordered that vehicle should be released subject to petitioner furnishing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.7,94,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court and trial Court shall not insist the petitioner to produce the solvency certificate.
SD/- JUDGE DR