The amount of bank guarantee imposed as a condition for release of a vehicle seized under the Forest Act in interim custody can be reduced by the court considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.10.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner whereby the Revisional Court accepted the revision preferred by the petitioner and whilst setting aside the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority being the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest Bikaner in appeal, directed the seized vehicle being Pickup registration No.RJ-13G-6945 to be released to the petitioner on interim Supardginama upon submitting a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner's Pickup vehicle registration No. RJ-13G-6945 was seized by the S.H.O., Police Station Sidhmukh, Dist. Churu whilst transporting forest produce (green unripe Khejri wood) without permit.

3. The petitioner filed an application before the concerned Assistant Conservator of Forest for releasing the vehicle to him on Supardginama. The learned Assistant Conservator of Forest rejected the application preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 10.7.2014 holing that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated as the same was being used for transporting prohibited Khejri wood. If the vehicle was released on Supardginama there was every possibility that the accused would attempt to delay the trial of the case and would continue to use the vehicle to his own benefit. It was also opined by the Assistant Conservator of Forest that the release of vehicle seized under the provisions of Forest Act was beyond the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer and also against the letter and spirit of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1952 as amended in the year 2012. The learned Assistant Conservator of Forest also held that as the matters were pending consideration before the concerned criminal court, it would not be just and proper to confiscate the vehicles till the cases are decided by the trial court.

4. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest by filing an appeal before the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bikaner. The appeal came to be decided on 3.9.2014 and the Appellate Authority concurred with the order passed by the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest and rejected the appeal.

5. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Authorised Officer by way of a revision. The Revisional Court vide order dated 7.10.2014 accepted the revision but imposed a condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs and Supardginama of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer as a condition precedent before the vehicle was released to the petitioner in interim custody.

6. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of instant misc. petition for setting aside the condition imposed by the Revisional Court of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs for getting interim custody of the vehicle during pendency of the trial.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is sub judice before the trial court. There is every possibility that the petitioner might be acquitted by the trial court. In such a condition, the vehicle will no longer be liable for consication. He submits that imposing a condition that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for getting interim custody of the vehicle pending trial is too onerous and deserves to be modified. The petitioner deserves liberty to receive interim custody of the vehicle in question by furnishing a solvent security instead of a bank guarantee. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported AIR 2003 SC-638 and prays that the misc. petition be accepted and the condition imposed by the Revisional Court on the petitioner to furnish a bank guaratee of Rs. 2 lacs for getting interim custody be set aside.

8. Per contra learned P.P. urges that a presumption of law operates in the mat