Dismissed

Ch.Rambabu v. Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta

Telangana HC28 Apr 2014CRLP/4890/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a condition requiring a bank guarantee to release a seized tractor seized in connection with a crime where ownership was undisputed. The Court modified the condition to require a bond with one surety instead of a bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Condition of furnishing bank guarantee relaxed to execution of bond with one surety for the same amount with additional undertakings.

Ch.Rambabu Vs Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2014

¶6

Between: Ch. Rambabu … Petitioner/owner of the property V/s. Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta & Ors. … Respondents-A-1 to A-4

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora

¶8

Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor

¶9

The court made the following: [order follows]

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2014

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the condition imposed by II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari district, in CrlMP.No. 810 of 2014 in Crime No. 24 of 2014 of Kalla Police Station, West Godavari.

¶14

2. Heard Advocate for Petitioner.

¶15

3. It is submitted that tractor of the petitioner was hired for digging fish tank. On the report of Assistant Director of Fisheries, Bhimavaram, Police registered Crime No. 24 of 2014 against respondents 1 to 4 herein and they have seized tractor and trailer belonging to the petitioner and when the petitioner filed petition under section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody, court below directed petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is submitted that the said condition is too harsh and when the petitioner is no way concerned with the crime, asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- to take his own property is not justified.

¶16

4. I have perused the material filed alongwith this Criminal

¶17

Petition.

¶18

5. One of the accused in Crime No. 24 of 2014, who is fourth respondent herein filed WP.No. 5135 of 2014 and in the said writ petition there was an interim order in WPMP.No. 6380 of 2014, dated 24/02/2014, permitting the fourth respondent herein to continue acquaculture operations during pendency of the said writ petition.

¶19

6. As seen from the interim order, this Court permitted the fourth respondent herein to continue acqua-culture operations and according to Advocate for petitioner, the FIR registered against respondents is illegal in view of interim order passed by this court in the above referred writ petition.

¶20

7. Now the point for determination is whether the condition imposed is reasonable for release of the vehicle ?

¶21

8. P O I N T : Furnishing bank guarantee is almost depositing cash. When the petitioner is owner which fact is not disputed by the other side, I feel that condition has to be modified by relaxing the condition of furnishing bank guarantee into executing a bond with one surety for likesum for the same amount and on further condition that petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court below and he shall not alter the vehicle without previous permission of the court below and he shall not sell or hypothecate the vehicle without getting permission from the court below.

¶22

7. With this modification, this Criminal Petition is disposed off at

¶23

the admission stage.

¶24

____________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.

¶25

28/04/2014 I s L

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2014

¶28

Circulation No. Date:28/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

Ch.Rambabu v. Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Rambabu v. Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta

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

Mohd.Akber Vs Diwakar Nair

K.Sukanya Vs J.Rani

K. Srinivasa Raju, (A01), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peyyalamitta Seethramanjaneya venkata Siva Vs Peyyalamitta Ajaya Krishna

Chinnimilli Venkateswara Rao Vs Panchigolla Srikanya Manikya Venkateswara Gupta

Gadde Devika Vs Gadde Venu Gopala Krishna