POONARAM NAGPURE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant has filed this petition on the ground that while directing handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama, learned Collector, Durg in Case No. 2/2004, dated 8- 3-2004, has directed to furnish hank guarantee of Rs. 2,50,000A.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the conditions imposed for return of vehicle is onerous. It is also submitted that the direction to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 2,50,000.00 is not at all justified. So far as handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama is concerned reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 2002 SC 5301, decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Baligera Bheemudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1993 (4) Cr 1074 and further reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in case of Vishal Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2003(2) M.P.H.T. 46 (CG) = 2003 (1) MPLJ 71. The contention is that if the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated then the security can not be demanded but if it is liable for confiscation then the conditions can be imposed to furnish security. It is submitted that imposing the condition like the present one results in depriving of handing over the vehicle on Supurdnama to the applicant.