IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal and heard the petitioner's counsel and also the learned HCGP for respondent-State.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that vehicle is seized in connection with the offence under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 and the application is filed before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the release of vehicle in Crl.Misc.No.90/2019. The additional District and Session Judge, Gadag by the order dated 28.02.2019 allowed the application and imposed certain conditions. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, aggrieved by the order of the Court below, insofar as condition No.5 that the petitioner shall furnish renewable bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- which is double the value of the seized vehicle as assessed by the complainant, the petitioner filed petition before this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the condition No.5.

(3.) The main ground urged in the petition is that petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and the seized vehicle is kept idle nearly about 5 to 6 months. The petitioner unable to furnish renewable bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as condition imposed by the addition Sessions Judge is highly improper and perverse and bad in law and hence, prayed this Court to set aside the condition No.5.