Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
Ravi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3122 of 2020
Decided On : 17-07-2020
A.V. Ramakrishna, Advocate, K. Nageshwarappa, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to modify harsh conditions imposed for the release of a vehicle in a criminal case, taking into account the petitioner's hardship and the prevailing circumstances, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.
Headnote:
Cr.P.C. - Release of Vehicle - Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule -1994, Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act -1957, IPC - Sections 42, 44, 21, 4(1), 4(1A), 379 - Summary: The court considered a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.25/2020 by Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, which confirmed the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Crime No.128/2019 by Civil Judge and JMFC Pandavapura, for the offence under Sections 42, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule -1994, Sections 21, 4(1), 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act -1957, and Section 379 of IPC. The court allowed the petition in part, replacing the condition of furnishing bank guarantee with a requirement to furnish indemnity bond and a surety possessing immovable property in Pandavapura Town.
Fact of the Case:
A criminal case was registered against the driver and owner of a tipper lorry for transporting stolen sand without a permit or license. The petitioner, accused No.2, sought release of the vehicle and was directed to furnish a bank guarantee or deposit Rs.5,00,000/- and a surety for like sum within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee to be too harsh and an uphill task for the petitioner, especially considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It allowed the petition in part, replacing the condition with a requirement to furnish an indemnity bond and a surety possessing immovable property in Pandavapura Town.
Issues: The main issue was the imposition of a harsh condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the release of the vehicle in a criminal case involving the transportation of stolen sand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the hardship faced by the petitioner in complying with the condition, especially in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The court considered the necessity of maintaining the appearance, shape, and structure of the vehicle while granting relief to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed in part, replacing the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee with a requirement to furnish an indemnity bond and a surety possessing immovable property in Pandavapura Town.
JUDGMENT
N K Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference today.
2. Learned counsel Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, for petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent is present.
3. The petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.25/2020 by Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 18.02.2020, whereby the learned judge dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and confirmed the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Crime No.128/2019 by Civil Judge and JMFC Pandavapura, for the offence under Sections 42, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule -1994 and Sections 21, 4(1), 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act -1957 and Section 379 of IPC.
4. Basically criminal case came to be registered against the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-B-5792 for the aforesaid offences and the vehicle in question is tipper lorry. It is stated that the said vehicle was transporting stolen sand on 18.12.2019 without any permit or license. Melukote police have registered the case on the strength of complaint lodged by one Chidananda.B Police Officer. The present petitioner is stated to be accused No.2 who is the RC owner of the vehicle in the case.
5. An application was filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.No.128/2019 and the said application was filed by petitioner-accused No.2 came to be allowed subject to the condition. The operative portion of the said order is as under:
"ORDER
1. The application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant is hereby allowed, the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-B-5792 is released for interim custody of the applicant, with following conditions.
2. The applicant shall furnish bank guarantee or deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and along with one surety for like sum, within three months from the date of this order.
3. The applicant shall not transfer the said Tipper Lorry Vehicle Bearing No.KA-11-B-5792 in favour of others in any manner.
4. The applicant shall not change the identification of the said vehicle by making major repair or by changing its colour.
5. The applicant shall produce the said Vehicle before this Court and I.O. whenever required to do so.
6. I.O. Shall take photographs of the said Vehicle from different angles at the expenses of the applicant and submit along with report.
7. If the applicant fails to furnish security as per condition No.1, the office is hereby directed to issued notification for auction of the said Vehicle, after laps of three months from the date of this order.
8. Intimate the same to concerned I.O."
6. However, the petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee or deposit Rs.5,00,000/- along with one surety for the likesum within three months from the date of said order.
7. The effect of non-compliance of the condition No.2 is mentioned at Condition No.7 of the order dated 17.01.2020 which is as under:
"7. If the applicant fails to furnish security as per condition No.1, the office is hereby directed to issued notification for auction of the said Vehicle, after laps of three months from the date of this order."
8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge, at Mandya in Crl.R.P.No.25/2020, on 18.1.2020, the said application came to be rejected. Thereby, the order of the Civil Judge and JMFC came to be confirmed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused No.2 would submit that the petitioner is pulling on the hard days with the said vehicle as the source of livelihood and he has been asked to furnish bank guarantee which is very difficult for him. He would further submit that the learned trail judge erred in imposing such a huge condition of furnishing bank guarantee or depositing of Rs.5,00,000/- and hence seeks for relaxation of said condition.
10. Learned HCGP opposes the same and submits that the vehicle is very much required for completion of investigation and also for the trial and submits that the
