IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11449/2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH B S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT VENKATESWARA NILAYA KACHOHALLI LAKSHMIPURA DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE RURAL -562 123.
(BY SRI. DEEPAK D.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY MAGADI POLICE STATION, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN THE CRL.MISC. 4/2019, VIDE ORDER DAETD:28.01.2019, PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA, IN C.C.NO.940/2018, STATE BY MAGADI P.S. SEEKING RELAXATION OF BAIL CONDITIION IMPOSED TO FURNISH RENEWABLE BANK GUARANTEE FOR RS.
20,00,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY LAKHS ONLY) TO RELEASE THE INTERIM CUSTODY PRODUCED AT ANNEXUER 'A'.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Deepak D C, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused case papers.
2. Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-52-A- 7789 came to be seized on 09.12.2018 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 4(1), 4(1A), of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 3, 42 and 44 of Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 and thereafter a private complaint came to be filed in P.C.R.No.232/2018 on 10.12.2018. Thus, vehicle has been seized even before filing of the complaint.
2. Prima facie, seizure is bad in law.
Learned Sessions 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.20,00,000/-.
3. Since seizure of the vehicle is prior to filing of the private 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) .
4. In these circumstances, condition No.(1) imposed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 20.12.2019 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- requires to be relaxed.
5. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Condition No.(1) imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara by order dated 20.12.2018 in Crl.Misc.No. 641/2018 is hereby relaxed and it is ordered that vehicle should be released subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp