Partly allowed

Khemchand Son of Shri Kantiram Jatav, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024CRLMP/7538/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order releasing a seized tractor subject to a bank guarantee. The High Court held the bank guarantee condition onerous and unjustified, removing it while retaining the mundinam condition.

What did the court decide?

The order is modified to remove the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- while rest of the order remains operative.

Khemchand Son of Shri Kantiram Jatav, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6422]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7538/2023

¶4

Khemchand Son Of Shri Kantiram Jatav, R/o Village Toda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

Authorized Officer and Asst. Forest Conservator, Rajgarh, Alwar.

¶9

Appellate Authority and Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanna Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

07/02/2024

¶15

Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, challenging the order dated 05.06.2023 passed in criminal revision No.10/2023 by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, whereby the petitioner’s vehicle Tractor bearing No. RJ-02-RD-7051 with trolley, seized in FIR No.82/2010, has been released in favour of petitioner on furnishing supurdginama of Rs. 4,50,000/- as also the bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

¶16

Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

¶17

A perusal of order dated 05.06.2023 indicates that the trial Court has allowed the application of petitioner for supurdgi of the vehicle in question, i.e. tractor with trolley, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in case of State of

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6422]

[CRLMP-7538/2023]

Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan [(2000) 7 SCC 80] and released the vehicle in question vide impugned order dated 05.06.2023 on furnishing supurdginama of Rs. 4,50,000/- as also bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which order has been affirmed by the trial Court, on the application filed by petitioner to relax the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee, vide order dated 25.10.2023.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the condition of the vehicle in question as also the fact that the petitioner is a poor person and the said vehicle is petitioner’s only source of income, the condition of furnishing bank guarantee is unjustified, hence, the same be removed. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of State of Kerala V. A.A.Ali [(2019) 14 SCC 800] , wherein the Apex Court directed to release the vehicle without insisting for Bank guarantee. Reliance has also been placed on Ramesh Kumar V. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 799] , wherein the condition to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs.2 lac has been held to be onerous and unjustified.

¶23

Having considered submissions of counsel for both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in requiring supurdginama and undertaking incorporating other conditions. However, considering the condition of the vehicle in issue, the case in which it has been seized and in view of judgment of the Apex Court in A.A.Ali ( Supra ) and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ramesh Kumar ( Supra ), this Court finds that the condition of bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/- is onerous and

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-7538/2023]

[2024:RJ-JP:6422]

unjustified, therefore, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, deems it just and proper to modify the impugned order and remove the condition of bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/-, rest part of the impugned order shall remain operative.

¶28

Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is partly allowed.

¶29

All other application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶30

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶31

Sachin/650

Khemchand Son of Shri Kantiram Jatav, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemchand Son of Shri Kantiram Jatav, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu D/O Shri Ajay Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bai Meena Daughter of Batturam Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhup Singh Son of Sh. Vikram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Choudhary @ Bhola S/O Goverdhan Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Antar Lal S/O Sh. Sita Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramsingh S/O Shri Sadhuram @ Sandhya Vs the State of Rajasthan