^if. IN THE mGH COURT OF JVDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cr.M.P. N0. - ^ ^ OF 2009 (PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) APPLICANT ^ ^••••7...^ <^^" ^-- ^' -B" v RESPONDENIr Sanjay Gupta S/o Bishambhar Dayal Gupta, aged about 29 years, R/o - New Market, Dallirajhara, District- Present R/o - Awanti vihar colony, Police Station - Telibandha, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Distric? Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) .^" :»ETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE •^£.2^:_ ^.^ ^ ^ ,© ^^•""^^- V.. .; ;\^ , '• • -, '(y--l"^"a^;;.: ' •' ' . ..•• .... ••':••.,•; •\ S-\ G^^t^ ^ . ..•''.'"'^ .v|t/-.' .•.,..; •"• :' v. :..'.;.•'' •.'i-'/-'"^'"' .;/ • -• ..'.•.•:.:-''-";, '^ :M^<N»^^ ^i^m^ WM^V •^i^-^^^M'w^^^ • '<3»iB^tf^l|»'.^..;31|^»•.|^<liE@^,,|^@*;:.^»|»::lll@»'';tSE:,i i«^»C».:'ltt|^ ,;.:;X|3F»Eia 8^WE»-.Xhyti?it^a^.y^i««'>^ti«;» ^*^.«watt'!Wl^l»: / ,^3,^ta?llst' • »it^'<:«i»^»y • <, '••'..•:". . ".'; •: •^. ' '.•: . ,•:"''< • ' ^ v ^w^ ^>-<^ ^/ ^7\ ® j 8.^ta^hit< | ^^ (^z---/ ^- ^j^M.%%]|^|i|||i^j?|||^^t^||.^?i^ ^^^^^-^ %^^^ HISH COURT OF AT Singlc Bench ; Hor»'bl@ Mr. Jystlce Cr.M.P. No. 169 of 2009 APPLICANT/ Sanjay 5upta son of BJshambhar Dayal 6uota Vcrsys RESPONDENTS Stote of Chhattisgarh & another No.l. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appijcant. Shri Ravindra Agrowal, PL for the State/respondent Shri A.C. Sahu, counsei for rsspondent No, 2. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE_O£_CRXM£NAL (28.04.2010) Present petition filed under* Section 482 of the Codeof Criminai Procedure 's dlrected aQdnst the impugned order dated 8.12.2008 passed by iearnsd Sessions Judge, Raipur m CrJmind Reyision No. 230/2008 whereby learned Reyisional Court hos affirmed the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by Additionai Chief Judicid Magistrate, Raipur by wh.ich the learned Magistrote h.as rejected the appilcation as filed by the appiicont under Section 451 of the Code of CrJminaJ Procedur® for reieosing the seized amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on supurdglnama. 2. Counsel for the o-ppiicGnt submits that the cash Gmount seized from the appiico.nt is the. o.ppllcant's own money and the appiicant requires the same for his busines-s purpQse. He submits that if this amount is not given to the applicont, he wlll suffer an irreparobi®loss. He submits that the appiicant is a!so one of.th.e accused and, therefGre, question of his ab.sconding imwdrr ^,€-K^^ does not arise and even he is wiliing to give bank guc.rc.nte®of this amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3 . Counse! for th@ state and counsel for the complo.inant haye no objection if the amount is given to the app!icant on supurdgino.ma State 'counsel, however, submlts that th'e amount be released only after the appJJcant furnlshes bank guarantee. 4. I have heard counsei for the partles and perused the materiai Qvd!ab!e on record. 5. Wlthout further entsrlng into merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Amount of Rs. 1,00,OQO/~ which has been seized from the GppilcGnt be giyen to h.im on supurdlgnama on his furnishing bank guorantee of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Cour!-. i 1 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge