The court emphasized the need to balance the conditions for the release of seized vehicles, considering the livelihood of the petitioner and the roadworthiness of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 15.05.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) to the extent of imposing condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lacs for release of vehicle bearing registration number PB11CJ-2204.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 4/2021 under sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner by the respondent and the petitioner was arrested in connected with aforesaid FIR. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and after the seizure of the said truck (vehicle), the petitioner is at the verge of starvation and it is quite impossible for the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lacs.

3. It is further stated that that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and had approached the court of learned Sessions Judge, Samba for release of the same on 19.04.2021. The learned trial court vide order dated 15.05.2021 (supra) directed the release of the vehicle on supurdnama of the registered owner, subject to fulfillment of four conditions and one of the conditions figuring at serial No. 10 is reproduced as under:-

"10. The applicant shall also furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lacs., to abide by the aforenoted conditions."

4. It is further stated that the learned trial court has also dismissed the review of order impugned vide order dated 02.06.2021 with the observation that the trial court is not vested with the inherent powers and also that there is no such provision under criminal law for modification of its order.

5. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has assailed order dated 15.05.2021 (supra), primarily on the ground that the aforesaid condition imposed by the learned trial court is not justifiable.

6. Learned counsels for both the sides submit that appropriate order may be passed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. The only purpose for releasing of the vehicle is to ensure that the vehicle remains roadworthy otherwise if the same is allowed to remain in police custody, the same shall lose its utility. The learned trial court has already imposed numerous conditions by releasing the vehicle in question and the purpose is to ensure that the vehicle is not disposed of by the person on whose supurdnama the vehicle is kept and the same is produced before the court as and when required.

9. The Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) has held that:-

"It is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications, for return of such vehicles."

10. The condition of imposing bank guarantee by the learned trial court is harsh, when other conditions have already been imposed by the trial court. So this Court is of the considered view that the said condition is required to be modified and the petitioner shall furnish two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each.

11. For all what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. Condition No. 10 imposed vide order dated 15.05.2021 by the learned trial court is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall furnish two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.