CRL.P.No.

101008/2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101008/2018

BETWEEN:

SHRI. SUNIL SAHADEV MELAGE,

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: INDIAN ARMY,
R/O: NOW R/AT: BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SURAJ SAHADEV MELAGE,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: GARLGUNJI,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH KHANAPUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI
DATED 08.05.2018 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.1130/2018,
INSOFAR AS DIRECTING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF
THE PETITIONER FOR EXECUTING RENEWABLE BANK
GUARANTEE FOR `8,00,000/- IN RELEASING BOLERO VEHICLE
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-28/M-7521.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.P.No.101008/2018

:2:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned HCGP for the respondent – State. Perused the

materials placed before this Court.

2. The vehicle belonging to the present petitioner

is said to have been seized by the

respondent/complainant police in their station Crime

No.226/2018 for the offences punishable under Section

379 of IPC and Sections 4(1A), 21 and 22 of Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and

Rules 3, 32 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1994. It is also stated that, in the said

crime, two vehicles, a tipper bearing registration No.GA-

04/T-3006 said to be transporting the sand illegally and a

Bolero motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/M-

7521 said to be aiding the tipper vehicle in transporting

the said sand, were seized by the police.

3. The present petitioner filed an application in

the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in

 CRL.P.No.101008/2018

:3:

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1130/2018 under Section 451

read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking release of the

Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28/M-7521. The

said Court by its order dated 08.05.2018, allowed the said

application, however, with the conditions inter-alia that,

the petitioner/applicant before it, should execute a

renewable bank guarantee for a sum of `8,00,000/- with

two sureties for like sum. It is the said order of the

learned Sessions Judge, imposing a condition that the

petitioner shall execute a renewable bank guarantee for a

sum of `8,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum, the

petitioner has challenged in this petition. He has sought

for modifying the said order insisting for execution of

renewable bank guarantee for a sum of `8,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his

arguments, while reiterating the contention taken up by

him in the memorandum of petition, contended that the

Panchas to the alleged Seizure Panchanama have valued

the said vehicle at `4,00,000/-. As such, imposing the

condition to execute a bank guarantee for double the said

 CRL.P.No.101008/2018

:4:

amount is not called for. He further submitted that the

amount is on the higher side and the petitioner finds it

very difficult to execute the renewable bank guarantee for

the said amount.

5. Learned HCGP, who has taken notice for the

respondent - State, submitted that there are ample

materials collected by the investigating officer to show that

the alleged Bollero vehicle was also involved in the

commission of alleged crime. He further submitted that

the Court below, rightly relying upon the amendment

brought to the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession

Rules, 1994, in the year 2017 and as per the said sub-

rule(8) of Rule 43, has imposed the said condition of the

petitioner executing a renewable bank guarantee for

double the amount of the value of the vehicle. As such, the

order under challenge does not warrant any interference

by this Court.

6. The Sessions Court has allowed the petition

filed by the petitioner herein under Section 451 read with

 CRL.P.No.101008/2018

:5:

457 of Cr.P.C., and ordered for release of the vehicle,

however, with few conditions. The petitioner before it was

directed to execute a renewable bank guarantee for a sum

of `8,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum. As

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

Panchas might have valued the said Bolero motor vehicle

at `4,00,000/-. However, it is worth to be noticed that the

Court below has relied upon sub-rule(8) of Rule 43 of the

Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Second

Amendment) Rules, 2017, with effect from 16.11.2017,

which reads as below;

“No release of the vehicle which shall however not

include the minor mineral so seized be made
unless there is an execution by the owner thereof,
of security in the form of a renewable Bank
Guarantee, of an amount equal to double the
value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court
having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of
which the seizure has been made.
Provided that where a report has been
made to the Competent Court under sub-rule (7)
the seized vehicle shall not be released except
under the orders of such court.”
 CRL.P.No.101008/2018

:6:

A reading of the said Rule clearly go to show that the

release of the vehicle shall be only upon the person who is

entitled for the said relief, furnishing a security in the

form of renewable Bank Guarantee of an amount equal to

double the value of such vehicle, before the Competent

Court having jurisdiction to try the offence.

7. In the instant case, when the assessment of

the valuation of the vehicle was at `4,00,000/-, then as

per the above Rule 43(8) of Karnataka Minor Minerals

Concessions (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017, the

release of the vehicle would be only upon furnishing a

security in the form of a renewable bank guarantee of an

amount equal to double of the said value. Since the

imposition of said term of furnishing security in the form

of a renewable bank guarantee, more so, for an amount

equal to double the value of the said vehicle being a

statutory mandate imposed by law, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly applied the same and directed the

petitioner for furnishing security in the form of renewable

bank guarantee for double the value of the said vehicle.

 CRL.P.No.101008/2018

:7:

8. In such a scenario, the alleged financial

difficulty or inconvenience of the petitioner to furnish a

bank guarantee would not be of much weightage. It is to

be noticed that, what the petitioner is required to furnish

is a renewable bank guarantee but not a cash amount of

`8,00,000/- in the form of deposit. Therefore, I do not find

any illegality or impropriety in the order under petition. As

such, I do not find any grounds to admit the matter.

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed at the stage

of admission, as devoid of merits.

Sd/-
JUDGE

gab