AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
The applicant has approached this Court by this revision application seeking relaxation of the operative order dated 15.04.2025, Below Exhibit 150 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.
Shri Acharya, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the application was filed by the applicant who happens to be one of the accused for handling over of the locker no. 22 and key no. 86 at UCO Bank. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that said locker containing golden ornaments belonging to the family of the applicant. Applicant is the accused in Crime No. 6 of 2017, the offence was registered in the year 2017 and the entire locker as well as ornaments and keys of the locker were seized by the CBI during the course of investigation. Hence, applicant has filed application before the District Judge-1 Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha in Special ACB Case No. 7 of 2021 for release of the locker no.22 and handing over of the locker keys bearing no. 86 provisionally in favour of the accused Vrudhula Vijaykumar Suryanarayan Murty during the pendency of the trial. The learned trial Court after giving an opportunity to the non-applicant Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), had allowed the said application. However, imposing onerous conditions, the applicant is directed to furnish indeminity bond of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- and solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thus, these conditions according to the learned counsel for the applicant is onerous and could not have been imposed by the learned trial Court, as the same makes it highly impossible for the applicant to comply with the said condition thereby rendering the order of releasing the locker and keys as meaningless. The applicant is already being prosecuted for the offence of the said crime. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had itself, come up with a reply that those articles which are sought to be released by the present applicant are not required by the prosecution to prove the case against the applicant, virtually giving no objection for releasing of such articles. Even then, learned trial Court has imposed upon such an onerous condition. The said condition imposed by the learned trial Court for providing and furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- for release of the locker no. 22 and locker key no. 86 provisionally in favour of the accused along with the articles kept in the locker, is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri Sathianathan, learned Special Counsel for the non-applicant/Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) though opposed the said application for relaxation of condition, however, fairly concedes that the said condition cannot be imposed in view of the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has deprecated the practice of putting onerous condition while allowing the application filed by the accused. Learned Special Counsel further submits that though the said ornaments and the articles were seized during the course of investigation, but however, the same was not relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case to prove the guilt of the accused in the said crime. The said articles are lying in the Malkhana of Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau and an appropriate orders, therefore may be passed in the present application.
I have gone through the order dated 15.04.2025. The said order is passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hinghanghat in Special Case No. 7 of 2021 which is a case filed by the CBI against the Bank Officials of UCO Bank, whereby the allegations are of wrongful disbursement of the loan amount to the tune of Rs.22.6 crore without following due process as laid down under the procedure and guidelines governing the same. Perusal of the order dated 15.04.2025 would show that the Central Bureau of Investigation had admitted in its reply that the articles in the locker are not relied upon by the prosecution. Order further shows that the prosecution does not require those articles for proving the case against the applicant and other accused persons. After issuance of notice by this Court, CBI has also filed their reply to the present revision application. The reply filed by the CBI before this Court dated 12.08.2026 again reiterates that the items sought to be released by the applicant are not relied upon by the prosecution in the instant case to prove the guilt against the accused in the aforesaid crime no. 6 of 2017. Thus, in my opinion, the condition no. (iii) as imposed by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat in its order dated 15.04.2025 appears to be onerous and the same needs to be quashed and set aside.
As it is the learned trial Court has already directed to the applicant to furnish indemnity bond of Rs.30,00,000/- along with Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- and solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/-. The only ground for filing the present application is the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- and thus, a case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is made out. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order.
ORDER
The revision application is allowed.
Condition no. (iii) imposed vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed below Exhibit 150 in Special (ACB) Case No. 07 of 2021, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat for furnishing of Rs. 10,00,000/- as bank guarantee is hereby quashed and set aside.
However, the applicant shall furnish indemnity bond of Rs.30,00,000/- and solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/- for release of the said locker and other articles as directed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2025.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.