CRLRC/1157/2024 of PRADIPTA KUMAR SAHOO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case was filed by the petitioner herein/owner of the vehicle, against the Order dated 07.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.803 of 2024 in Crime No.196 of 2024 of Airport Police Station, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, to the extent of imposing conditions directing the petitioner herein to execute a bond for Rs.1,95,000/- with one surety and also furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- for release of Maruti Swift Dezire motorcar bearing registration No. OD02 G 6162.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner herein/owner of the vehicle is owner of the subject vehicle seized in Crime No.196 of 2024 of Airport Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short „the NDPS Act‟). The Investigating Officer seized the vehicle during the course of investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner/owner of the vehicle, who is claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.803 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order dated 07.10.2024, allowed the said petition as under:

“In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand only) with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand only). The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before this Court as and when he is directed during the trial and also during confiscation proceedings, if any, such proceedings are initiated. The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or change its nature and character or physical features during the pendency of the case. The vehicle shall not be used for the commission of any offence. The Investigating Officer shall take the photographs of the vehicle from all angles for the purpose of future identification of the vehicle.”

4. Aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge to the extent of directing the petitioner herein to execute a bond for Rs.1,95,000/- with one surety for a like sum and to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the offence and he has no knowledge about the facts of the facts, but the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the same, directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.1,95,000/- with one surety and furnish bank guarantee of Rs.1,95,000/-, which is onerous.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the first condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the Order, dated 07.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.803 of 2024, to the extent of directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety five thousand only) with one surety for likesum is modified directing the petitioner/owner of the vehicle, to execute personal bond for

a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety five thousand only). The rest of the conditions, imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, shall remain unaltered.

7. With the above said modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 31[st] December, 2024. DNB