This court in Special Civil Application No. 9203 of 2020 pointed out the purport of the Rules, the facts herein are almost similar to those in the said petition and therefore it is unnecessary to address the facts of the case in detail; suffice it to say that for the reasons indicated in the aforesaid Special Civil Application, the respondents herein having failed to initiate the proceedings contemplated under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) in absence of the petitioner compounding the offence, are duty bound to release the vehicle in question without insisting for bank guarantee.
The submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the clause 12 (2)(b) (ii) is invocable even after expiry of 45 days is against the Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 31 21:03:13 IST 2020 C/SCA/9360/2020 ORDER very purport of the said rules as consciously the outer limit of filing a case after completion of the inquiry has been specified therein and there is nothing in the rules relaxing such position. The submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that even in absence of compounding/complaint the property seized can be released only on furnishing the bank guarantee deserves no merits for the reasons assigned in aforesaid Special Civil Application.
In above view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and therefore the respondents are directed to release the vehicle being No. Hyundai Hitachi machine bearing registration no. GJ-14-M-M- 6899, Chasis and Engine No. N601D03499 forthwith. The petition is allowed.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J) MOHAMMEDSHAHID/ SONGARA/NIRU Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 31 21:03:13 IST 2020