IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Crl. PETITION NO.7410 OF 2009 Between: K. Uma Maheshwar Rao … Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. through S.H.O, Jinnaram P.S, Medak District. .. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.7410 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle in question. Even in the impugned order, the learned Magistrate was straight away inclined to release the vehicle subject to the petitioner’s undertaking to continue to own and maintain the vehicle in the same condition and on execution of a personal bond for Rs.3,00,000/- with one surety for a likesum, as admittedly, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle and the vehicle is kept in the police station and it is getting rusted. Infact, there is no necessity for providing the surety for a likesum of Rs.3,00,000/- is the claim of the petitioner in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in Baligera Bheemudu alias Bheemaian Vs. State of A.P.[1]. The learned Magistrate also referred to the decision stating that where the vehicle could not have been confiscated, even if the accused were to be convicted and sentenced, there is no jurisdiction for the criminal Court to impose any conditions to furnish security for the release of case property pending trial. It was held that the only safeguard which has to be made is holding up of the original R.C. Book and obtaining a written undertaking against any alienation or encumbrance in any manner and for production of the vehicle whenever directed by the court. An additional safeguard prescribed by the decision is that of addressing the concerned Transport Authority about the vehicle being case property and being subject to written undertaking with the original R.C Book with the court for ensuring its production whenever required. The learned Magistrate could not have required a surety under the circumstances against the binding precedent, whatever be his perceptions of such necessity. Under such circumstances, the order of the trial court needs to be modified. Accordingly the order in Crl. M.P.No.581 of 2009 in Crime No.852 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Medak dated 4.8.2009 shall be modified by directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs only) and to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit not to alienate or encumber the vehicle in question in any manner and to keep the vehicle in the same physical state without altering the physical features and to produce the same whenever directed by the trial court and produce the original R.C Book of the vehicle on which the interim custody of the vehicle shall be entrusted to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shall address the concerned Transport Authority stating that the said vehicle is a case property; that there is a written undertaking that the said vehicle shall not be sold, transferred or encumbered and that the original R.C. Book is in the custody of the court for ensuring the production of the vehicle as and when called for. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. ______________________ Date:14.09.2009 G.BHAVANIPRASAD,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.7410 OF 2009 Date:14.09.2009 Gk. [1] 1993 CRI.L.J 3462.