1 Cri.Writ Petition No.165 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.165 OF 2011 Anil S/o.Navnath Marathe, Age-21 years, Occu-Driver, R/o.Padalsingi, Tq.Georai, Dist. Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32. 2. Superintendent of Police (Rural) At Aurangabad, Through Police Station, Pachod, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.V.M.Humbe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 06/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The 2 Cri.Writ Petition No.165 of 2011 Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash and set aside the order dated 15/12/2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No. 2/2010, which is marked at Exh.21 in respect of condition no.2(i) imposed while allowing the application. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State. 4. It appears that petitioner herein has filed an application for release of his vehicle Mahindra Max Jeep bearing no.MH-12- EF-5860, which was seized in Crime No.III-57/2009. Later on, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and on the basis of said charge sheet, Special Case No.2/2010 was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Aurangabad. It is not under dispute that before this application was moved before the learned Special Judge, the petitioner herein has filed Criminal Writ Petition No.441/2010 for release of the same vehicle, as his application for release of vehicle was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 30/12/2009. It appears that said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 27/07/2010 with certain directions. After the fresh application was filed by the present petitioner, the application was allowed by the Trial Court on certain conditions, of which condition no.2(i) is challenged before this Court, as the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the court below. On perusal of the impugned 3 Cri.Writ Petition No.165 of 2011 order, so also the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 441/2010 dated 27/07/2010, it reveals that directions were given in para no.13 of the said order, to examine the documents produced the petitioner and on its satisfaction, to release the vehicle in question in favour of petitioner by way of interim custody, subject to condition that petitioner furnishes bond of Rs.4,00,000/- as per usual terms and conditions towards security. 5. In view of the order passed by the Court below, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the directions were given in para no.13 of the order passed in Writ Petition No.441/2010 to the Trial Court that the vehicle be released on furnishing bond of Rs.4,00,000/- and not the bank guarantee. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to furnish the solvent surety to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as directed by this Court while disposing the earlier writ petition. 6. It is known legal preposition that the vehicle to be released on furnishing bond or surety to secure that the article/vehicle returned to the petitioner, not to be disposed of during the pendancy of the trial and the petitioner to produce the articles/vehicle returned to him, whenever required during the pendancy of trial without any modification or change in the said article/vehicle. In view of this, as the learned counsel for petitioner shown his willingness to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, writ petition succeeds. 4 Cri.Writ Petition No.165 of 2011 The condition imposed by the learned Trial Court in in the order impugned vide term no. 2(i), the applicant shall furnish a bond of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs.four lacs only) and to furnish bank guarantee of the said amount before the Court, is hereby modified. The vehicle in question be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, to the satisfaction of police authorities and to the satisfaction of Court. 7. Rule made absolute as indicated above. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.wp 165-11