1 2025:CGHC:27774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1809 of 2025 1 - Praveen Kumar Mishra S/o Late Sanat Kumar Mishra Aged About 60 Years Government Employee Patwari, P.H. No. 31, Village- Kharra, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.), R/o Kumhari, Tahsil- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/06/ 202 5 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 2/2025, which was arising out of order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara (C.G.) in Crime Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.26 16:09:49 +0530 2 No. 359/2024. 2. Brief facts of the petitioner’s case are that on 06.11.2024, an accident was caused by the car Ignis Maruti Suzuki bearing registration No. CG-07-BY-2688 and one motorcyclist, namely Hemant Verma, was dashed by the said car, due to which the biker of motorcycle passion pro bearing registration No. CG-25-4683 has sustained injuries. Thereafter, FIR bearing Crime No. 359/2024 has been registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 146/196, 190(2) of M.V. Act against the petitioner, and the said car has been seized. The petitioner, being registered owner of the aforesaid car, filed an application under Section 503 of BNSS before the learned JMFC, Bemetara, for interim custody of the seized car. On due consideration, the learned JMFC has passed an order dated 03.01.2025 directing the petitioner to deposit a Bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/- in compliance of Rule 240-A of M.V. rules and Supurdnama of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the interim custody of the seized car be handed over to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge and vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025, the learned sessions judge has dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the learned JMFC, Bemerata. Hence, the petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, so far it relates to imposition of condition upon the petitioner to deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakh, is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that at the time of deciding the supurdnama application, the issue of Rule 240-A of M.V. Rules is not required to be considered. He also submits that the vehicle has been seized for 7 months and is getting damaged due to a lack of proper maintenance. The amount of Rs 2 lakh is too much; an appropriate order may be passed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside so far as it relates to the imposition of a condition upon the petitioner to deposit a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakh. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the same and supported the order impugned submitting that the vehicle can be handed over by giving bank guarantee by the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 4 the material available on record, it is directed that the vehicle in question shall be handed over to the petitioner after due verification, subject to depositing a bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 2 lakh and Suprudnama of Rs. 10,00,000/- as ordered by the trial Court. The rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of at motion stage itself with the aforesaid modification in the order impugned. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu