Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Mori Rameshbhai Mavjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 11 November, 2016

Author: C.L.Soni

Bench: C.L. Soni

                 R/SCR.A/7413/2016                                                     ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MODIFICATION/DELETION OF
                           CONDITION) NO. 7413 of 2016

         ==========================================================
                        MORI RAMESHBHAI MAVJIBHAI....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MS. KRUTI M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR HARADIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

                                           Date : 11/11/2016

                                            ORAL ORDER

1. The matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Hardik Soni, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. As stated in the petition, the tractor-cum-loader bearing registration No.GJ-13-EE-0100 is taken as muddamal in connection with the complaint registered as Crime Register No.I-33 of 2016 with Panshina Police Station for the offences under sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). For release of such vehicle, the petitioner preferred an application under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Limbdi. Such application came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28/7/2016. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.9 of 2016 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 12 01:11:50 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/7413/2016 ORDER Judge, who decided the revision application, allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and ordered to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner giving bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle with personal bond of the equal amount and on other conditions a stated in the order dated 17/9/2016. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the condition of giving bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle and thus has challenged the order passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge seeking modification of the order so as to delete the condition of giving bank guarantee by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned advocate, Ms. Medha Pandya, appearing for Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the petitioner, submitted that for the offence of theft of sand which was allegedly found loaded in the vehicle of the petitioner, the petitioner should not have been asked to give bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle for release of the vehicle over and above giving of personal bond of the equal amount. She submitted that there are not less than seven other conditions imposed while ordering to release the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is made available at the time of trial and, therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have imposed the harsh condition of providing bank guarantee to get the vehicle released. She also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and in absence of any antecedent of the petitioner, the learned Judge was not justified in asking for even providing bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle.

4. Learned APP, Mr. Soni, submitted that since the vehicle of the Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 12 01:11:50 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/7413/2016 ORDER petitioner was found for committing theft of sand, which is mineral, from the river bed, the learned Judge has deemed it proper to impose additional condition of providing bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle by the petitioner while ordering to release the vehicle. He submitted that for such condition imposed while exercising discretion by the learned Judge to release the vehicle, this Court may not interfere in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Court having heard the learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the order dated 17/9/2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge for release of the vehicle finds that the vehicle of the petitioner is taken as muddamal in connection with the offence under sections 379 and 114 of IPC. While releasing the vehicle by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, with bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle, the learned Judge has also ordered giving of personal bond of equal amount with other seven conditions. The seven conditions appear to be sufficient to ensure that the vehicle of the petitioner is made available at the time of trial. The Court finds that when the petitioner is already asked to provide personal bond for the amount equal to the amount of bank guarantee, the petitioner was not required to be put to further condition of providing even bank guarantee for such amount. In such view of the matter, the order in so far as ordering the petitioner to provide bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle is required to be quashed and set aside. The other conditions of the impugned order shall remain undisturbed.





                                       Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC                              Page 3 of 4      Created On Sat Nov 12 01:11:50 IST 2016
                     R/SCR.A/7413/2016                                             ORDER




6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 17/9/2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi, in Criminal Revision Application No.9 of 2016 to the extend the petitioner is directed to provide bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle is quashed and set aside. Thus, the condition for providing bank guarantee of one and half times the value of the vehicle shall not remain as part of the order dated 17/9/2016. The other conditions of the impugned order are not disturbed and the petitioner shall continue to abide by the other conditions. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(C.L.SONI, J.) RADHAN Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 12 01:11:50 IST 2016