Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 97
2012(1) C.G.L.J. 386
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J.
BHARAT MAIHER Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 12 of 2011,
Decided on : 18-3-2011.
Ms. Morisha Chattri, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent.
The court emphasized the need for reasonable conditions in interim custody orders, ensuring that they do not deny interim custody or frustrate the order.
Headnote:
Bank Guarantee - Interim Custody of Vehicle - The court quashed the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs for the interim custody of the vehicle, and instead directed the petitioner to furnish solvent surety of the State of Chhattisgarh for the same amount.
Fact of the Case:
The court reviewed an order related to the interim custody of a Bolero vehicle, which imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that imposing the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs would constitute a hardship to the petitioner and may amount to denial of interim custody.
Issues: The main issue was whether the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs for the interim custody of the vehicle was just, proper, and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while passing the order of interim custody, reasonable conditions should be imposed, ensuring that such conditions would not deny interim custody or frustrate the order.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs was quashed. Instead, the petitioner was directed to furnish solvent surety of the State of Chhattisgarh for the same amount.
l. Heard on admission.
2. 1 have perused the order impugned dated 4-1-2011 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund in Criminal MJC No.42/2010 relating to interim custody of the Bolero vehicle.
3. Vide the aforesaid order learned Special Judge has directed for inter m custody of Bolero vehicle in favour of the applicant on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs with other conditions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cost of Bolero would be below Rs.6 lakhs and it would not be just, proper and reasonable to impose the condition for furnishing bank guarantee.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition.
6. While passing the order of interim custody the Courts are required to impose reasonable condition for compliance of the order and are required to ensure that such condition would not constitute denial of interim custody or frustrate the order. As per case of the prosecution, the vehicle in question was involved in the offence punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and cost of the alleged Bolero vehicle would be Rs.6 lakhs. For submitting bank guarantee the petitioner is required to deposit money to the extent of such bank guarantee in the bank. Definitely, this would be a hardship to the petitioner and some time it may amount to denial of interim custody.
7. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed and the condition relating to furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.6 lakhs is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall furnish solvent surety of the State of Chhattisgarh, of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6 lakhs.
Petition Allowed.
