Rajiv B Ranjan @ Rajiv Ranjan Singh v. The State of Assam

ORDER

09.10.2023

Heard Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2In this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely, Rajiv B. Ranjan @ Rajiv Ranjan Singh has put to challenge the Page No.# 2/4 correctness or otherwise of the order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji in connection with Dhemaji PS Case No. 102/2022, under Sections 397/411 of the IPC read with Section 13[1] of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act.

¶3It is to be noted here that vide order dated 22.07.2022, the learned court below has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner, seeking custody of the Truck, bearing registration No. GJ-26-T-7218, on the condition that the petitioner has to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/- before taking custody of the seized vehicle. It is also to be noted here that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police, in connection with Dhemaji PS Case No. 102/2022, under Sections 397/411 of the IPC read with Section 13[1] of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act and the said case was registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Chandra Bora, on 09.06.2022.

¶4Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and in support of the contention Mr. Chutia refers to the registration certificate of the vehicle [Annexure – 3]. Mr. Chutia further submits that the vehicle is seized in connection with Dhemaji PS Case No. 102/2022, under Sections 397/411 of the IPC read with Section 13[1] of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act and thereafter, the petitioner has preferred one petition before the learned CJM, Dhemaji and vide order dated 22.07.2022, the learned court below has allowed the petitioner to take custody of the aforesaid seized vehicle, on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Mr. Chutia also submits that the petitioner took the vehicle on hire purchase from TATA Motors Finance Limited and he has to pay monthly installment @ Rs. 72,372/- and in support of the same Mr. Chutia has referred to Annexure – A of the Additional Affidavit and submits that the petitioner is not in a position to Page No.# 3/4 furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/-, as ordered by the learned court below and therefore, it is contended to modify the aforesaid condition, so as to enable the petitioner to take custody of the vehicle.

¶5On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. submits that vide order dated 22.07.2022, the learned court below has imposed the condition in accordance with law and therefore, no interference of this Court is required.

¶6Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.

¶7It appears that the vehicle was seized on 09.06.2022, and since then the vehicle is lying in the police campus. Further, it appears that the petitioner has approached the learned CJM, Dhemaji by filing a petition seeking custody of the vehicle and vide order dated 22.07.2022, the learned court below has allowed the petition and directed to release the seized the vehicle in the custody of the petitioner, on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/-. But, it appears from the additional affidavit, specially from the Annexure – A, that the petitioner has purchased the said vehicle on hire purchase from TATA Motors Finance Limited and the petitioner has to be pay installment @ Rs. 72,372/- per month and as such, he is not in a position to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/-, so as to get the vehicle in his custody.

¶8Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the end of justice will be made out if the aforesaid condition is modified to the extent that instead of bank guarantee of Rs. 30,00,000/- the petitioner shall furnish indemnity bond of Rs. 30,00,000/-.

¶9Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing an indemnity bond of Page No.# 4/4 Rs. 30,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Dhemaji, the vehicle shall be released in the custody of the petitioner.

¶10In terms of above, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010219402023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1053/2023 RAJIV B RANJAN @ RAJIV RANJAN SINGH S/O BRIJ KISHORE RANJAN R/O VILL- FLAT NO. 303, SAMPRAN COMPLEX, SHANTI NAGAR, P.S. KADODARA DIST. SURAT GUJARAT VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN