1. Is it mandatory on the part of the court to insist for bank guarantee or cash security for the value of the vehicle involved in an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to be released under Section 451 Cr.P.C., is the short question that arises for consideration in these matters?

2. The car belonged to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6534 of 2017 in O.R.No.5/2017 of the Mukkuzhy Forest Station was allegedly involved in transporting elephant tusks. According to the petitioner in the Crl.M.P., who is the respondent herein, one of his friends wanted his car for family use for a day. He willingly parted with the car and handed it over to his friend. The next day the car was returned. Subsequently, Forest Officials came to the house of the said petitioner and took away the car by stating that the person to whom the car was given had made use of the car for transporting elephant tusks. The car was seized on 12.10.2017.

3. The petitioner being the registered owner approached the court below with the said Crl.M.P., for getting the car released to his custody, pending conclusion of trial, under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate heard the respondent herein as well as the petitioner and passed Annexure AV order, the operative portion of which is as follows:

“Hence, this application is allowed and the vehicle is released to the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. on his executing a bond for Rs. 4.5 lakhs each with two solvent sureties or each for the like sum on following conditions:

(1) The vehicle shall not be transferred or subjected to any material alteration during the pendency of the case.

(2) The investigating officer is at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner with the prior permission of the court to produce the vehicle before him as part of investigation in this case as and when required so.

(3) The vehicle shall be produced before court as and when directed so.”

4. The respondent in the Crl.M.P. was not satisfied with the said order, since no bank guarantee was insisted by the court or no cash security was ordered. Therefore, the Forest Range Officer, Pamba has come up with this Crl.M.C for getting the said order quashed.

5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader has argued that the offences under the Wild Life Protection Act should also be treated in the same status as of forest offences. The learned Special Government Pleader has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan[AIR 2000 SC 2729] wherein it was held that furnishing of bank guarantee should be the minimum requirement for the release of a vehicle which has to be confiscated as per the provisions of the Forest Act. It has been argued that the observations in the said judgment are applicable to the offences under the Wild Life Protection Act also. Further, the learned Government Pleader has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan[2002 KHC 2007] wherein it was held that a casual approach should not be there in ordering the release of the seized vehicles involved in the offences under the Wild Life Protection Act also. It was held therein that the said vehicles involved in the said offences should not be casually dealt with and normally that should not be released when there is specific provisions for the forfeiture of such vehicles on confiscation. Only sparingly such vehicle can be released and in such case, stringent conditions should be imposed. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the above lines is also relied on.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the decision in State of Karnataka(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the said decision was rendered on the basis of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. It has been pointed out that Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1