1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2879 OF 2009 Manmeetsingh Jaswantsingh Soni ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Amol Patankar for the applicant Mr.Y.S.Shinde,A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for State. A very narrow controversy is raised by this application. The applicant filed an application before the learned Magistrate being Misc. Application no.67 of 2009 for return of motor cycle. The said motor cycle is in custody of the police in connection with an offence registered with Pen Police Station. The aforesaid application was made by the applicant under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. By the impugned order dated 17th June 2009, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application by directing the applicant to execute a bond in the sum of Rs.10 lacs and directing the applicant to give bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.5 lacs. 2 The case of the applicant is that he purchased the motor cycle in December 2008 at the price of Rs. 2,55,000/-. He placed reliance on the documents showing that the vehicle was purchased for the said amount. The certificate of registration shows that the vehicle was registered in the year 2005. The price of the vehicle as 2 shown by the applicant in the insurance policy is Rs.5 lacs. An application was made by the applicant for modification of the said order by contending that even if valuation of the said vehicle is made at Rs. 5 lacs, there is nothing produced on record to show that the said vehicle was sold for the said price. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the bond amount and the amount of bank guarantee fixed by the learned Magistrate is excessive. The learned A.P.P supported the impugned Judgment by stating that in the panchnama, the valuation of the motor cycle has been made at Rs.10 lacs. 3 Perusal of the documents on record shows that the registration of the vehicle relates to the year 2005. Assuming that at that time the value of the vehicle was Rs.10 lacs, in the year 2009, the said vehicle cannot be valued at Rs.10 lacs. Moreover, in the insurance policy, the price of the vehicle is shown to be Rs. 5 lacs. There is prima facie material on record to show that the applicant acquired the said vehicle in December 2008 by paying the price of Rs.2,55,000/-. 4 Considering all these aspects, impugned order needs modification. Instead of bond of Rs.10 lacs, the applicant will furnish bond of Rs.2,55,000/-(Rupees two lac fifty five thousand only) and instead of bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs the applicant will furnish bank guarantee of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only). 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 17th June 2009 3 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pen in Criminal Misc. application no.67 of 2009 is modified by reducing the bond amount to 2,55,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty five thousand only) and by reducing the bank guarantee to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only). The applicant will have to comply with the rest of the conditions imposed under the impugned order. JUDGE