Gujarat High Court
Dharmeshbhai Laljibhai Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 3 January, 2022
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/12803/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12803 of 2021
=======================================================
DHARMESHBHAI LALJIBHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SADIK A ANSARI(5388) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 03/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Looking to the issue involved in the present matter, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested for disposal of the present petition at an admission stage and, hence, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi waives service of notice of rule for respondents.
3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the condition imposed while passing an order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tapi at Vyara in Criminal Revision Application No.52/2016, by which, the petitioner is directed to furnish unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the muddamal seized vehicle with the bail and bond of the same amount.
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 16:28:03 IST 2022R/SCR.A/12803/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2022
4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Sadik Ansari appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondents.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that that muddamal vehicle has been seized by the Police authority in connection with an FIR being C.R. No.I-117/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi for the offences under Sections 379, 186, 506(2), 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rule 21(2) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and for the release of the muddamal vehicle, the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the concerned Magistrate Court for getting interim custody of the vehicle in question, which has been seized by the Investigating Agency in connection with the aforesaid FIR, which came to be dismissed by the concerned Magistrate Court and, therefore, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application 52/2019 before the learned District Judge, Tapi at Vyara, who by impugned order dated 31.07.2019, allowed the said application and thereby released the muddamal vehicle on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. He further submitted that that the petitioner is the owner of the muddamal vehicle and petitioner is carrying on the business of transport, however as stated above, the muddamal vehicle was detained by the police on allegation that it was involved in Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 16:28:03 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/12803/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2022 illegal mining and transportation of minor mineral sand. He further submitted that in fact, the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is too harsh and it is not possible for the petitioner to fulfill the same.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in such type of matters of release of muddamal vehicles seized pursuant to the FIR, for which, vehicle in question is seized, this Court has entertained those petitions and passed an order modifying the condition imposed by the Court below and. Learned advocate has placed on record a copy of order dated 15.07.2021 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.3746/201. Learned advocate has shown willingness to submit solvent surety instead of unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the muddamal seized vehicle with the bail and bond of the same amount. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be allowed by modifying the conditions imposed by the concerned Sessions Court.
7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition and contended that the Sessions Court has not committed any error while imposing the aforesaid conditions and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition.
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it appears that in similar type of cases, this Court has considered the request of the concerned owner to furnish solvent surety instead of bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 16:28:03 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/12803/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2022 the value of the muddamal seized vehicle with the bail and bond of the same amount. Therefore in the facts of the present case, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The condition imposed while passing an order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tapi at Vyara in Criminal Revision Application No.52/2016 is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is permitted to submit a solvent surety to the extent of Rs.6.00 lakhs to the satisfaction of the authority concerned instead of furnishing unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the muddamal vehicle and upon such furnishing solvent surety, the muddamal vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner. Rest of the conditions imposed by the court below shall continue to operate.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 16:28:03 IST 2022