Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD . Issue notice. Learned PP accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally and decided today itself.
(2.) THE instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.7.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Chittorgarh imposing the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 Lakhs only) for releasing the Scorpio Vehicle No. MH -06 -AN -7531 to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the vehicle in question. The vehicle was stolen from Sakinaka, District Mumbai on 23.2.2011, in relation whereto, an FIR No. 79/2011 was registered at P.S. Sakinaka, District Mumbai. The vehicle in question was seized by the S.H.O., P.S. Bhadesar on 28.7.2011 while transporting poppy straw. The police could not trace and locate the actual accused and, therefore, a final report has been filed in the matter as the accused could not be found. The petitioner as well as the registered owner Vinayak have not been found to be involved for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act in relation to the said vehicle. The I.O. has also concluded that the registered order of the vehicle had sold the vehicle to the petitioner before the incident and thereafter, the vehicle was stolen from the petitioner as well. In this view of the matter, the petitioner applied for releasing the vehicle on supardginama. The learned court below has accepted the said application but has directed the petitioner to deposit a bank guarantee of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 Lakhs only). Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant misc. petition seeking a direction for relaxation of the said condition.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP and after going through the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the condition imposed by the learned court below directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 Lakhs only) is too onerous a condition. The trial court itself has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in transporting the poppy straw and that he was not in control of the vehicle when the poppy straw was being transported as the same was stolen five months earlier. Therefore, this Court feels that the direction issued by the court below for furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 Lakhs only) while releasing the vehicle on supardginama cannot be said to be justified. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed and now in terms of the order dated 28.7.2012, the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on his furnishing a solvent security to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 Lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the court below instead of furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 Lakhs only).;