Gujarat High Court High Court

Laeeq vs State on 2 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Laeeq vs State on 2 February, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/105/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 105 of 2010
 

=========================================================

 

LAEEQ
ANSAR KHAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
EE SAIYED for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRNASIRMSAIYED for Applicant(s):1, 
MR KP RAVAL,
APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

Date
: 02/02/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval
waives service of Rule for respondent No.1, State of Gujarat.

Petitioner
is original accused. He had filed an application No.11/2009 seeking
custody of muddamal truck seized by the police in connection with a
criminal case in which the petitioner is one of the accused.

Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad by his impugned order dated
21.12.2009, ordered release of truck on several conditions.
Condition No.1 was that the petitioner, till the criminal case is
disposed of or till further orders, shall during 1st
and 5th
of every month continuously deposit the amount equivalent to monthly
installment of repayment to the finance company from whom previous
owner had obtained loan for purchase of the truck. Conditions No.2
to 5 provides that he shall not sell or transfer the vehicle and
shall maintain the same in proper condition. The main condition of
the order is that he shall provide
bond of Rs.10 lacs with one solvent security.

In
the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the first
condition namely that of depositing installment amount every month
with the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad.

Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the condition is too harsh. The
petitioner had purchased the vehicle after paying full consideration.
In any case requirement of maintaining the vehicle in same condition
as well as not transferring the same are imposed. Further, condition
of providing security of Rs.10 lacs is also to be fulfilled. He,
therefore, requested for cancellation or modification of the said
condition.

I
have also heard learned APP for the State.

Considering
the factual aspects involved in the matter and bearing in mind the
fact that the petitioner is otherwise also required to give security
of Rs.10 lacs and not to transfer or sell the vehicle during the
pendency of the trial, additional condition of continuous deposit of
the installment amounts would be onerous. Same is modified by
providing that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the installment
amount every month. To the above extent, condition No.9(1) is
modified. Rest of the conditions remain unchanged. Disposed of
accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(Akil
Kureshi, J.)

menon

   

Top