Gauhati High Court
Sanjib Mazumdar And Anr vs The State Of Assam on 17 December, 2019
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010308072019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 1477/2019
1:SANJIB MAZUMDAR AND ANR.
S/O D.N. MAZUMDAR, R/O VILL-L.P. ROAD N. AREA LANKA, P.O. AND P.S.-
LANKA, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782446
2: MD. MAKBUL ALI
S/O LATE AJIJULA HAQUE
R/O VILL/TOWN-LANKA TOWN
RAM BALLAB AGARWALLA PATH
WARD NO. 1
P.S.-LANKA
SUB-DIVISION-HOJAI
DIST-NAGAON (ASSAM)
PIN-78243
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 17-12-2019 Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R.J. Barua, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/2 By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for expunging the direction passed by the Court of learned SDJM, Bokajan in connection with Bokajan P.S. Case No. 171/2019 under Section 379 of the IPC read with Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as to the requirement to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs in the form of Bank Guarantee for each vehicle.
Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Court below, while releasing the seized trucks to the petitioners, who are registered owners of the said trucks, directed to produce Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5 Lakhs each to their inconvenience as the vehicles are still under finance of bank. Ms. Chakraborty further submits that a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 307/2019, by order, dated 20.03.2019, in similarly situated facts, directed to release of vehicle on indemnity bond. Ms. P. Chakraborty, further submits that the petitioners are the registered owners of the vehicles and they are also ready to submit any personal bond undertaking to produce the vehicles as and when required by the Court, but the condition imposed by the learned trial Court has been extremely harsh for the petitioners as they are not in a position to provide the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5 Lakhs each.
Mr. R.J. Barua, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the impugned order, dated 16.11.2019 may be modified suitably so that the seized vehicles are no more required to be detained for non-furnishing of the Bank Guarantee as directed.
It appears from the impugned order that the petitioners are the registered owners of the vehicles, for which, custody was given to them. Having considered the fact, that the petitioners themselves are the registered owners of the vehicles, the condition given by the learned trial Court, in my considered view, requires to be modified. Accordingly, it is provided that instead of providing Bank Guarantee, the petitioners will give an indemnity bond of the said amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs each undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial Court.
With the above direction, the petition stands disposed off.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant