Mohin Gena And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2021, vide which the petitioners were directed to submit a Supardginama of Rs.13,00,000/-

along with one solvent surety in the like amount. The condition imposed by the learned trial court to the effect that the petitioners shall submit a receipt

by depositing the amount of maintenance of the seized animals in the Jain Gaushala, Chenpura where the animals were kept, within a period of three

days may also be quashed.

ii) quash and set aside the order dt. 27.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh to the extent vide which, the learned revisional court

directed that the petitioners/ registered owner, the physical controller of the vehicle through the Power of Attorney on the said date and the driver of

the vehicle/accused shall also be liable for the cost of treatment and maintenance of the seized livestock during the pendency of the case.

iii) release the Trucks of the petitioners, whose registration numbers are mentioned in the cause-title of the writ petition in favour of petitioners upon

furnishing a reasonable solvent surety.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court while releasing the vehicles in question directed the petitioners to submit

Supardginama of Rs.13,00,000/- and a solvent surety for the same amount each, which is unreasonable.

The learned trial court also imposed an onerous condition to the effect that the petitioners shall submit receipts after depositing the amount of

maintenance of the seized animals in the Jain Gaushala, Chenpura where the animals were kept, within a period of three days. The learned revisional

court also erred in modifying the order of the trial court to the effect that the petitioners/registered owner, the physical controller of the vehicle through

the Power of Attorney on the said date and the driver of the vehicle/accused will also be liable for the cost of treatment and maintenance of the seized

livestock during the pendency of the case. It is contended that the vehicles in question are lying at the police station under open sky exposing to air,

heat, dust etc. and may loss its value. The seized vehicles are the only source of livelihood of the petitioners. The petitioners could not ply the vehicles

in question during the COVID-19 pandemic and they are unable to deposit such a huge amount of Supardginama as well as surety. He prays that the

condition of depositing receipt may be quashed and the amount of Supardginama as well as surety may be reduced.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition

No.2355/2017 (Sita Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan) on 26.07.2017.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on record.

While relying on the decision rendered in the case of Noordeen Vs. State of Raj (S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.21/2006), decided on 05.01.2006

wherein it was held that the guilty of an offender cannot be presumed by the court until and unless it is proved by a cogent evidence and therefore, the

condition of depositing Rs.50,000/- therein is in violation of the right of ""personal liberty"" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the

coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Devi (supra) deleted the condition with regard to the deposition of Rs.2,00,000/- by the petitioner

therein in the trial court Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the condition of furnishing Supardginama of

Rs.13,00,000/- and a solvent surety for the same amount appears to be onerous one, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is reduced to Rs.10,00,000/-.

The condition imposed by the court below with respect to depositing the amount of maintenance of the seized animals is hereby quashed and set aside.

The vehicles in question is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioners as already directed by the trial court.

The criminal writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.