Imposing a bank guarantee as a condition for the interim release of a vehicle on the sole ground of the owner's relationship to an accused, when the owner themselves is not an accused, is considered onerous and unjustified.

The Court made the following:

O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case was filed by the petitioner herein/owner of the vehicle, against the Order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.436 of 2024 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram (for brevity ‘learned Special Sessions Judge’) in Crime No.1 of 2024 of Mothugudem Police Station, to the extent of imposing condition No.2 in its Order, directing the petitioner herein to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- besides executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum for release of Royal Enfield Classic 350 motorcycle bearing registration No.AP07 CX 3368.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner herein is owner of the subject vehicle seized in Crime No.1 of 2024 of Mothugudem Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). The Investigating Officer seized the vehicle during the course of investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle, filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.436 of 2024 before the learned Special Sessions Judge seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Special Sessions Judge, by an order dated 04.03.2024, allowed the said petition, operative portion of which is as under:

“In the result, the petition is allowed.

1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for a likesum;

2. The petitioner being the brother of accused No.4, shall also furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-;

3. The petitioner is directed to produce the vehicle as and when directed by this court during the course of trial;

4. The petitioner shall not alter or sell the vehicle i.e. Royal Enfield Classic 350 bearing No.AP07 CX 3368;

5. The Station House Officer, Mothugudem Police Station shall take photographs of the seized vehicle from all sides clearly showing the engine number and chassis number and prepare a panchanama in detail to be attested by him and also the petitioner/owner of the vehicle and also witnesses thereto before releasing the said vehicle and said panchanama shall be filed along with photographs and CD before this Court, which shall be treated as evidence in trial;

6. The office is directed to address a letter to Registration Authority, Vijayawada under registered post with acknowledgment due, with a direction that not to allow the transfer of ownership of Royal Enfield Classic 350 bearing No.AP07 CX 3368 from the petitioner/owner of the vehicle to anybody pending disposal of the case in Crime No.1 of 2024 of Mothugudem Police Station under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.”

4. Aggrieved by the condition No.2 imposed by the learned Special Sessions Judge to the extent of directing the petitioner herein to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the offence and but the learned Special Sessions Judge, without considering the same, directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- besides executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum, only on the ground that he is the brother of accused No.4 in the impugned crime, which is onerous.

6