/f(~ Criminal M.P. No.fc%50f 2010' PETITION UNDER SECTION 48^0RCODE OF CRIMINAL PROC^DURE FOR OUASIttNG OF ORDER DATED 23.04.^010 PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION N0.57/2(yf0 BY THE LEARNED AD'DITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE SAKTI PETITIONER: / ' T. K. Nirsla ^-^f^y s^>-."" .„• .^-:^^,:^:-'":" ^w^^>^ ^•^l^ 'B'l- >'PU,^^.)^ () i^\ ^-N^7"^]] ;V^\ 23/.-U/ ,^J '(•|--V-l»- ^Sf^ \-' Girish Soni S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad Soni , aged about 31 years, of Visvkarma Bhanga Thana fisDistrict Umaria -VERSUS- State of f Jila janjglr a (CG). f ,/• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J, PETITIONER RESPONDENT Cr.M.P No. 683/2010 Girish Soni Versus State of Chhattisgarh Petition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C, Appearance: Shri K.K. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL- ORDER (PassedonO 1.09.2010) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has pniyed for quashing of order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Janjgir-Jampa in Criminal Revision No.57/2010. 2. Lesu-ned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the petitioner s application for interim custody of the vehicle has been allowed, an onerous condition of furnishing the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- from any nationalized bank has been imposed, which virtually amounts to rejecting the application for interim custody of the vehicle. He further submits that while imposing such an onerous condition, the learned Court below ignored that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the same is only source of livelihood and the vehicle itself has been taken on loan. He further submits that the y.f^., SSiKWSfe S '• s ^ '•SS-^'JS -2- condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2,50,000/- is exorbitant considering the present depreciated value of the vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the petidoner could not demonstrate that the petitioner/revisioner placed before the Court below relevant details with regard to make ofvehicle, purchasedfrvalue, depreciation value etc. No document with regard to undertaken loan, the extent of loan and re- payment liability have been placed on record, nor it has been pleaded that such docuinent and information were placed for consideration of the Court below and ignored while passing the impugned order. Therefore, in the opinion ofthis Court, no case forinterference is inade out in exercise ofthe power under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. 4. Petition is accordingly disinissed in limine. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Pravceii