- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in connection with Bandgaon Keraikella P.S. Case No. 1 of 2009 instituted under Sections 414, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, five trucks belonging to these petitioners were seized by Bandgaon Police. Subsequently, when the petitioners were granted bail, application for release of those vehicles bearing registrations nos. JH -01L -6427, JH -01M -4510, JH -01M -5198, JH -01L -7809 and JH -01L - 7805 belonging to the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 respectively was made but the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, vide its order dated 12.5.2000 refused to release those vehicles in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties passed an order vide its order dated 15.7.2009 for release of those vehicles but on depositing bank guarantee of Rs. 6,00,000/ - for each of the vehicle (truck).
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, since that amount was quite high, an application was filed subsequently for modification of the said order so that lesser amount of the bank guarantee be ordered to be deposited by the petitioners. However, the learned Sessions Judge, vide its order dated 23.7.2009 directed the petitioners to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/ - for each of the vehicle (truck) whereas the petitioners had offered to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for each of the truck but since that prayer was not acceded to, this application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.7.2009 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/ - for each of the vehicle (truck) as that amount being quite excessive, the petitioners may not be able to deposit the bank guarantee of the said amount and in that event, the petitioners would not be getting any fruit of the order under which trucks were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioners and, under this situation, order impugned is fit to be set aside. It was further submitted that if the order is set aside, necessary order be passed so that the petitioners may reap the fruit of the order relating to release of the vehicle.;