Partly allowed

Mani v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020CRL.P/5325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to relax a condition requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee for the release of a seized tractor. The court held that an indemnity bond was sufficient and set aside the bank guarantee condition.

What did the court decide?

The condition for furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.1,50,000 was set aside. The petitioner was required to comply with other conditions and execute an indemnity bond.

Mani Vs State of Karnataka by — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.5325 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5325 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANI S/O BADYA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HALEMARTHALLI VILLAGE, RAMPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 440 REPRESENETED BY HIS GPA HOLDER. GOPALA B S/O BADYA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT HALEMARTHALLI VILLAGE, RAMPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 440. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MANDYA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP) -----

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO RELAX THE ORDER REGARDING CONDITION

¶13

Crl.P.No.5325 of 2020

¶14

¶15

NO.1 TO FURNISH THE BANK GUARANTEE TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1,50,000/IN RESPECT OF TRACTOR BEARING REG.NO.KA-18-TA-0253 IN FAVOUR OF STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ORDER DATED:09.09.2020 IN CRL.R.P.42/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶19

The petitioner is before this court seeking for modification of condition No.1 whereunder the petitioner, who is RC Holder, has been directed to furnish bank guarantee to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/for release of Tractor bearing registration No.KA-18/TA-0253 that had been imposed on the petitioner by order of the Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya in Criminal Revision Petition No.42/2020 dated 09.09.2020.

¶20

The said proceedings arises out of PCR No.87/2019 which has been filed for the offences under Rules 3(1) and 42(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral

¶21

Crl.P.No.5325 of 2020

¶22

¶23

Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of the MMDR Act.

¶24

The vehicle is said to belong to the petitioner was seized by the authorities of the Mines and Geology Department, Mandya on account of violation of the above provisions. Subsequent to the said seizure, the petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for the release of the vehicle before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Srirangapatna. However, same came to be dismissed on 16.03.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

¶25

had approached the Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya in Criminal Revision Petition No.42/2020 wherein the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya allowed the revision petition on 09.09.2020 by imposing several conditions, one of the conditions being to furnish a continuing bank guarantee to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶26

Crl.P.No.5325 of 2020

¶27

¶28

The petitioner is before this court seeking for modification of the above condition contending that the said condition causes serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner would unnecessarily suffer huge loss if vehicle is not released unknowing when the trial would conclude. The trial court has already imposed a condition to execute indemnity bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety, which would be sufficient for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the State and as such, the petitioner seeks for deletion of the condition relating to furnishing of bank guarantee.

¶29

Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP on enquiry submits that neither there is a similar complaint against the petitioner nor the above vehicle has been used in commission of similar offences as complained of herein.

¶30

In view of the above submissions, I am of the considered opinion that the condition for furnishing

¶31

Crl.P.No.5325 of 2020

¶32

¶33

of indemnity bond to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/would suffice. The further condition for making available bank guarantee to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/is set aside. The other conditions imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya shall remain unaltered. Petitioner is directed to comply with the same.

¶34

On compliance of all conditions including the deleted condition, the vehicle shall be released to the interim custody of the petitioner on satisfaction of the ownership of the vehicle and identity of the petitioner.

¶35

The petitioner could be under an obligation to see to it that the vehicle is not used for commission of any similar offences as complained of herein.

¶36

The jurisdictional Police are directed to enter the registration number, chassis number and other identifying parameters relating to the above vehicle

¶37

Crl.P.No.5325 of 2020

¶38

¶39

as contained in the registration certificate of the vehicle in a separate register to be maintained by the Police.

¶40

The above data shall be made available to all the Police stations across the State in order to verify if the above vehicle is again used for committal of similar offences.

¶41

In the event of any of the above conditions and also the conditions imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge being violated, the above order will stand automatically revoked and the jurisdictional Police would be free to seize the vehicle-subject matter of the present petition.

¶42

In terms of the above directions, the above petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/- JUDGE

¶44

KNM/-

Mani v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepa Rai Nonso Vs State of Karnataka by

Renold Raj Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka by

Dr Poonam a Naik Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Ps

Mr Chandrashekar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadevi @ Madevi W/O Ramanagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka