Conditions for releasing seized property can be modified from cash deposits to indemnity bonds based on the parties' financial circumstances.

ORDER :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. This instant application under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Shri Aphong Wangsa and Shri Pangsong Wangsa respectively for alteration and modification or setting aside of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khonsa Division, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh with the direction to deposit Rs.15,000/- as security for the seized mobile phone and Rs.30,000/- for the motor cycle in the matter of Pangsong Wangsa and Aphong Wangsa-vs-State of Arunachal Pradesh arising out of KSA/GR(NDPS)C/No.32/2024, PCH PS C/No.08/2024.

3. The brief facts of the case is that during investigation of the aforesaid case, the investigating agency seized the mobile phone and motor cycle of the petitioners which were kept under their custody at Ponchau Police Station. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 503 of BNSS , 2023 before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khonsa Division, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh with a prayer for release of the Mobile Phone and the Motor cycle on Zimma. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2024, whereby the aforesaid learned Special Judge (NDPS) while allowing the applications laid down the following conditions:

(i) The applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- as a security for the seized mobile and Rs.30,000/- for the motor cycle keeping in view of the Section 60 to 63 NDPS Act;

(ii) The applicants shall not dispose of the released mobile and motor cycle by way of transfer or damaging the properties pending trial of the case;

(iii) The applicants shall produce the released properties as and when required or exhibit in this Court.

4. It is submitted before this Court that though the petitioners are agreeable to condition Nos. (ii) & (iii), they are aggrieved by condition No. (i) as the said condition is very stringent as well as the respective values of the Mobile phone and Motor cycle are much lesser than the security deposits that have been directed to be deposited.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are very poor people and does not have that kind of money to be deposited and therefore, they have prayed that instead of depositing of the aforesaid sums as securities, they may be allowed to take back the aforesaid Mobile phone and the motor cycle by furnishing indemnity bonds.

6. The learned Addl. PP Mr. T. Ete appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that it is the settled law that Zimma of the seized properties could be given to the owners with certain conditions like furnishing of an undertaking to trial Court that the property shall be surrendered as and when required by the investigating agency during the trial; with the undertaking that the properties shall not be disposed of by way of transfer or cause any damage to the properties during the pendency of the trial. He also submits that he does not have any objection, if the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 is altered/ modified to the extent that instead of depositing the aforesaid amounts as security, Indemnity bonds for the same amount which can be submitted before the trial Court.

7. Having heard the submissions and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that justice would be served, if the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.11.2024 is modified/ altered to the extent that instead of depositing the aforesaid amounts as securities, the parties are directed to submit 2 (two) indemnity bonds of the same value. Therefore, the petitioners herein are directed to submit Indemnity b