Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Abdul Ravoof vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-1-

IN THE men counts or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF' AUGUST, 2010,},
BEFORE I  
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASHVE AEI "  1.

CRIMINAL PETITION ;§6I3?75}2e1Q_': '- ,   'V

BETWEEN:

Abdul Ravoof

S/ 0 I-Iassan Sab Byari V 

Aged about 30 years

Residing at Mavinakatte _

Gulvadi Post    _  V. A  Y " 

Kundapura Tq.,_U--cIup1' Dist,    u h  ....PE."I'ITIONER

  I SE;IvI_,A§I:.oI:-"Kfi;_:naI-, Adv.)

1. StE,te of  I  .
By  %HoSg1nagar"R_aI:ge
2. The  Ofiicéfs and
, Dezputy Consexfvatqr of Forests
I-.._SagaI'.  I " """ " ...RESPONDEN'I'S

   [By Sri. Satish R Girji, HCGP}

CRIMINAL PE'I'I'I'£ON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

 i PRAIIING THAT THIS IIONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
  'SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 19.12.09 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.A 20/09
  FILE OF THE DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, F'IC--II,

_ L':"VAS.I:{II\/IOGA TO THE EXTENT OF IMPOSITION 05* CONDITION OF
 DFURNISHING THE BANK GUARANTEE OF RS.8.00,()()O/-- FOR

RELEASING THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA--lO/9393 AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE SAID VEHICLE ON
INDEMNITY BOND AND A SOLVENT SURETY.



THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE'. THE FOLLOVWNG:
O R D E R

This petition is directed against the condition imposled in

the order passed by the Fast Track

19.12.2009 in Crl. Misc. APDea1No.2Q/2O.09- 37- by

2. Petitioner had filed an application blunders’ Aslectiolnj 7″}p(D}.Vg

of the Karnataka Forest Act,”v-vaugabinstvh the of his

application for release of the vephic1e;_:’ho’Wever,’ the learned Fast
Track Judge while passing hasdrriposed a condition

that, the appellantlr1i.ust «bond and also bank

guarantee to the he “oi” -laiezhs.

3._ Learned sec-_un.sel’~~–“:for the petitioner submits that,

~”‘.condi’tienE bankhlguarantee to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs is not

V.7bas.ed» He has produced insurance policy to

show tliatvtlietiirallue of the vehicle as estimated by the insurance

‘company not more than Rs.3,10,000/-, that was also in the

V’ lllyear ‘2’QO8,N it could not have been valued at Rs.8 lakhs.

4. Considering the above, I find, while imposing bank

~ _ guarantee, the Court must taken into consideration the actual

value of the vehicle before it could be imposed such condition.

-3-

5. Considering the same, petition is parfly allowed.
Condition {d} in the impugned order is set aside. Petiiioner is

directed to furnish the bank guarantee to “of

Rs.3.1G.0{)O/–. All other Conditions as ordered xwjiii

undisturbed.

IU’DGE

$AP/_


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.175 seconds.