Allowed

Dineshwar Prasad v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC18 Nov 2021CRLMC/1006/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, entertained a miscellaneous case challenging the imposition of a Rs.50,000 cash security for the release of a seized vehicle. Considering the petitioner's financial constraints and the fact that property security was already imposed, the Court reduced the cash security requirement to Rs.10,000.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was modified to require cash security of Rs.10,000 instead of Rs.50,000, with all other conditions remaining intact.

Dineshwar Prasad Vs State of Orissa — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 1006 of 2020

¶3

Dineshwar Prasad

¶4

….

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. J.K. Panda, Adv.

¶7

-Versus -

¶8

State of Odisha

¶9

….

¶10

Opposite Party

¶11

Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

18.11.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Heard Mr. J.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by imposition of the condition to furnish cash security of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) for release of his vehicle by the learned Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Misc. Case No. 01/2019 arising out of 2(a)CC No. 28/2018(N).

¶20

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a Maruti Dzire VDI Car bearing Registration No. JH-01-CU-7645, which was seized in connection with 2(a)CC Case No. 28/2018(N). On an application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle, the learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Ganjam allowed such prayer by imposing certain conditions including the condition of furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees

¶21

Page 1 of 1

¶22

Fifty Thousand).

¶23

It is submitted by Mr. Panda that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish cash security for such amount because of his financial difficulties and as such, it is prayed that the same condition may be imposed for a lesser amount.

¶24

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitioner is a resident of the State of Jharkhand and may not produce the vehicle, if necessary during trial.

¶25

Having regard to the fact that the learned Court below has also imposed a condition of furnishing property security worth Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs), this Court is inclined to allow the prayer. The impugned order is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), the petitioner shall furnish a cash security of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with all other conditions remaining intact.

¶26

CRLMC is accordingly disposed of

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶28

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶29

A.K. Rana

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Dineshwar Prasad v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshwar Prasad v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Chandra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Narahari Roul Vs State of Orissa

Jharana Swain Vs State of Orissa

Suchitra Bisoyi Vs State of Odisha

Manorama Meher Vs State of Odisha

Anita Misra@Palo Vs State of Odisha