Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Raj Mohan Singh, J

The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

[1]. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by JMIC, SAS Nagar Mohali in FIR No.374 dated 15.11.2019 registered under Sections

61, 1, 14 of Punjab Excise Act at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali only to the extent of onerous condition in the form of furnishing

bank guarantee for the release of vehicle on superdari.

[2]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for release of the vehicle on superdari has been allowed, but the same has been

allowed subject to furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner equivalent to the value of vehicle in insurance policy. Petitioner is not in a position to

furnish bank guarantee on account of his financial constraint. His grievance is that the onerous condition of allowing the vehicle to be released on

superdari subject to furnishing bank guarantee is illegal as the Court is not legally entitled to impose such condition in view of ratio laid down in State of

Kerala Vs. A.A. Ali, 2018(4) RCR (Criminal) 112.

[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner still submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish two solvent sureties in the like amount and is also ready to file

undertaking before the trial Court. He is also ready to keep the registration certificate of the vehicle in the Court till conclusion of the trial and he will

not sell/alienate the vehicle in question and will not create any third party interest/encumbrance over the vehicle during pendency of the trial.

[4]. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the petition on the ground that the vehicle is involved in excise matter and is liable to be released only on

reasonable condition.

[5]. The issue has been debated in CRM-M No.23232 of 2019 titled Rohtas Vs. State of Haryana decided on 19.10.2019 and CRM-M No.47871 of

2019 titled Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 08.11.2019.

[6]. In view of judgment rendered by this Court in Rohtas' case (supra) and Balwinder Singh's case (supra), it would be just and appropriate to direct

the trial Court to accept two solvent sureties in the like amount from the petitioner instead of execution of bank guarantee by him. Petitioner shall hand

over the registration certificate of the vehicle along with an undertaking that he will not sell the vehicle in question and will not create any

encumbrance over the vehicle during pendency of the trial.

[7]. With the aforesaid modification, the present petition is disposed of.