•"a." itiigS®Beach BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.lVI.P. No._2^a___/2011 PETITIONER -^. ^..<?^ ^^'^^" v^"'"^'^ -^i\*vv«i;"! ^w'.::^^ ?"*" RESPONDENT Tarun Patel, S/o. Late Chhagan Bhai Patel, aged about 27 years, R/o. Aarang Timber Mart, tndira Timber Market, Bhanpuri, P.S. Khamtarai, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through: District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE^AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.0f.2010, PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION N0.20/2009T PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BHATAPARA, DIST. RAIPUR , ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.07.200$. PASSED BY THE JUOTCIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-SIMGA, DISTRICT RAIPUR <C.G.} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner Respondent Cr.M.P.NO.229/2011 Tarun Patel Versus The State of Chhattisgarh Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri A. K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 18-07-2011) This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21-01-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Criminal Revision No.20/2009. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner was looted and murdered. Upon police report being lodged, investigation was carried out and looted articles were seized by the Police, for which, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of interim custody before the trial Court. The learned trial Court has rejected the application, whereupon revision was preferred. However, the Revisional Court has allowed the application for interim custody, the condition of furnishing of Bank Guarantee has been imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below has not stated any specific reason as to why the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee has been imposed, whereas the Court below could have secured the custody of the articles by imposing appropriate condition of furnishing solvent surety. Learned w' counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition of fumishing Bank Guarantee is onerous. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court does not warrant any interference. He submits that the looted article include cash amount of Rs.2,16,000/- and other articles also. Learned State counsel next submitted that considering that the cash amount has been looted, the Revisional Court has directed to impose condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee, which cannot be said to be illegal or in any manner perverse, so as to warrant interference by this Court. 4. The order of interim custody has been passed in favour of the petitioner, who is son of the deceased-Chhagan Bhai Patel, who is alleged to have been looted and murdered. The articles are alleged to have been seized by the Police, in connection with the said crime, wherein the father of the petitioner have been looted and cash and other articles, which alleged to be seized from the accused. In these circumstances, the imposition of condition of Bank Guarantee appears to be unwarranted. Interest of justice would be served, if the petitioner furnishes solvent surety keeping in mind that the case and other articles are alleged to have been looted from the father of the petitioner, who was later on murdered. 5. Accordingly, 1 am inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Revisional Court to the extent, the manner of securing custody is concerned. It is therefore directed that instead of furnishing Bank Guarantee, if the petitioner furnishes solvent surety to the satisfaction, as may be directed by the learned Revisional Court, interim custody of the seized articles would be given to the petitioner. The petitioner shall move an application before the t learned Revisional Court, on which, the Revisional Court shall pas§ an order with regard to furnishing of solvent surety by the petitioner. 6. In view of foregoing, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No orders asto cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane