Disposed

Ashraf Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jun 2021CRMP/433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order clarifies that for the release of a seized vehicle under interim custody, the petitioner must furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 3 lac accompanied by a surety bond of the same amount, interpreting the District Collector's order to mean no immediate cash deposit is required.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of after clarifying that the petitioner must furnish a Bank Guarantee and surety bond of Rs. 3 lac each to release the seized vehicle.

Ashraf Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 433 of 2021

¶5

Ashraf Khan S/o Shri Arfi Khan Momin Aged About 42 Years R/o Charkhula Kala, Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

	---- Petitioner
	Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh T District Kabirdham, Chh	hrough The District Magistrate / Collector, Kabirdham, attisgarh. ---- Respondent
For Petitioner :	Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate.
For Respondents-State :	Shri Udhaw Sharma, Government Advocate and Shri Rakesh Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge Judgment on Board

¶8

Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge

¶9

09.06.2021

¶10

The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the vehicle Scorpio bearing Registration No. CG-07-MA 5283 involved in Crime No. 03 of 2020 in an offence under Section 34 (2) of Excise Act has been seized by the Police Station, Kukdur, District Kabirdham.

¶11

The Petitioner has filed an application for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama before the District Collector Kabirdham, which was rejected. Thereafter, he has filed CRMP No. 107 of 2021 challenging the said order of rejection. This Court, vide order dated 04.02.2021 has disposed off the petition directing the District Collector, Kabirdham to consider the application in the light of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat reported in

¶12

¶13

(2002) 10 SCC 283 expeditiously without being prejudiced by rejection of the application by the trial Magistrate and the Revisional Court. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.03.2021, the Collector, Kabirdham has allowed the application for release of the vehicle on an interim Supurdnama in favour of the present Petitioner. The finding recorded by the Collector is extracted below:

¶14

“izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A pwafd izdj.k esa tIr'kqnk okgu dk orZeku ewY; rhu yk[k :i;s gksuk ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh dchj/kke }kjk crk;k x;k gS A vr% vukosnd ¼okgu Lokeh½ }kjk tIr'kqnk okgu dks lqiqnZukek esa izkIr djus gsrq :i;s rhu yk[k dk cSad xkj.Vh ,ao mruh gh jkf'k dk lqiqnZukek e; 'kiFk i= izLrqr djus ij mDr tIr'kqnk okgu vukosnd ¼okgu Lokeh½ dks lqiqnZukes ij fn;s tkos A”

¶15

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order is not executed till today despite the order of interim Supurdnama passed on 16.03.2021 in favour of the Petitioner.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the State, Shri Rakesh Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Udhaw Sharma, Government Advocate. They would submit that the learned District Collector, Kabirdham has only demanded for a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 3 lac to be furnished by the Petitioner alongwith the affidavit for releasing of the vehicle. The condition of equal amount of Supurdnama was clarified by the learned counsel for the State, it means that he has to furnish the bond and in case if the vehicle is lost or destroyed or not available for examination, then he will be liable to pay Rs. 3 lac to the State exchequer for releasing of the vehicle and no cash amount is required to be deposited by the Petitioner.

¶17

The aforesaid clarification submitted by the learned counsel for the State seems to be proper and justifiable. The order passed by the Collector dated 16.03.2021 stands clarified to the extent that the Petitioner with Bank Guarantee of Rs.3 lac has to submit surety bond of Rs. 3 lac alongwith the affidavit for releasing of the vehicle. In view of the said clarification, the

¶18

¶19

Petitioner has to comply with the order of the Collector so that the seized vehicle may be released to the Petitioner forthwith.

¶20

With this clarification, CRMP No. 433 of 2021 finally disposed off.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶23

Hem

Ashraf Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amin Shekhani memon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Singh Vs Hemant Kumar and Ors.

Sanjay Das Vs Tekram

Prince Mittal And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Ramesh Jamdolia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh