Facts
The petitioners’ six tipper lorries were seized by the respondent in a case registered in 2021.
Source reference: p.4On their application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate ordered release subject to conditions, including an indemnity bond and surety, a bank guarantee of ₹10 lakh for each vehicle, and a prohibition on transferring or altering the vehicles pending disposal of the case.
Source reference: p.4The petitioners challenged the bank-guarantee condition and sought release without it; the Court also recorded their grievance regarding the transfer restriction.
Source reference: pp.3–5The case remained pending, and the vehicles remained in custody for five years.
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the condition requiring a bank guarantee of ₹10 lakh for each seized vehicle should be set aside as a condition of interim release.
Source reference: pp.3–52. Whether the restriction on alienating or transferring the vehicles pending disposal of the case should be set aside.
Source reference: pp.4–5Law Applied
Section 457 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to make orders concerning the custody or disposal of property seized by the police and reported to the court.
Source reference: p.4The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 482 CrPC, as invoked in the petition.
Source reference: p.2The Court relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 200882 of 2019, which had set aside a bank-guarantee condition imposed for release of a seized vehicle.
Source reference: pp.5–10The Court did not set out a separate general test for imposing release conditions.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court noted that the criminal case had been pending since 2021 and that continued custody of the vehicles benefited neither the petitioners nor the prosecution.
Source reference: p.5In light of the coordinate Bench’s decision concerning a bank-guarantee condition for release of a seized vehicle, it held that the impugned conditions should be quashed.
Source reference: pp.5, 10The Court did not provide separate reasoning on the transfer restriction beyond including it in the conditions set aside.
Source reference: no citationHolding
The writ petition was allowed in part.
The Court quashed conditions 2 and 3—requiring a bank guarantee and prohibiting alienation or transfer—and directed that the vehicles be released to the petitioners forthwith upon compliance with condition 1, requiring an indemnity bond and surety.
Source reference: p.10Acts & Sections Cited
9 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19571
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
SRI HARIKUMARvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
