Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 29
the Chhattisgarh High Court has eased the conditions for returning a seized vehicle in a recent petition, ruling that a cash security may be accepted instead of a bank guarantee. The applicant had challenged an earlier order by the Collector, Durg, which required a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,50,000 before the vehicle would be handed over on Supurdnama. The court found that the requirement was unduly burdensome in this instance.
In reaching its decision, the court considered precedents from higher and coordinate benches, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and the High Court’s own earlier order in Vishal Agrawal. Those authorities guide how courts should treat requests to release seized property where confiscation is not inevitable. Applying that reasoning here, the court concluded that justice would be better served by permitting the applicant to furnish a security of Rs. 2,50,000 in lieu of a bank guarantee.
Once the security is deposited and the usual undertaking given, the vehicle must be released to the applicant. The court emphasized that the vehicle remains subject to production whenever so directed and warned that any misuse or breach of the undertaking would expose the vehicle to re-seizure.
With that order, the petition was disposed of, and the vehicle release process was simplified for the applicant while still preserving the state’s ability to secure the asset if needed.
Case Details : Misc. Cri. Case No. 800 of 2004, Poonaram Nagpure vs. State of Chhattisgarh (29.04.2004)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ajay Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sudhir Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
Cases Referred:
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, 2002 AIR SCW 5301; Baligera Bheemudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 (4) Crimes 1074; Vishal Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2003(2) M.P.H.T. 46 (CG), 2003 (1) CGLJ 71
======
आपराधिक मामला – वाहन सुपुर्दगी (Vehicle Handover):
आवेदक ने यह याचिका इस आधार पर दायर की कि वाहन को सुपुर्दनामे पर देने के निर्देश देते समय, संबंधित कलेक्टर ने 2,50,000 रुपये की बैंक गारंटी जमा करने का आदेश दिया था। आवेदक का तर्क था कि यदि वाहन जब्ती योग्य नहीं है, तो सुरक्षा राशि की मांग नहीं की जा सकती, लेकिन यदि वाहन जब्ती योग्य है, तभी सुरक्षा संबंधी शर्तें लगाई जा सकती हैं।
न्यायालय ने यह माना कि इस मामले में न्याय के हित में बैंक गारंटी जैसी कठोर शर्त को हटाना उचित होगा। अतः बैंक गारंटी के स्थान पर 2,50,000 रुपये की साधारण सुरक्षा राशि स्वीकार करने का आदेश दिया गया।
इस प्रकार, याचिका का निपटारा उक्त निर्देशों के साथ कर दिया गया।
