Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 03rd January, 2015 wherein condition to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.5 lac has been imposed while releasing the vehicle on “Supurdgi”.

2. Learned counsel submits that while releasing the vehicle on “Supurdgi”, condition of bank guarantee cannot be imposed, thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside to the extent of imposition of condition of bank guarantee while releasing the vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given a reference of judgment of this Court in the case of Heera Chand vs. State of Rajasthan through PP reported in 2011(1) R.Cr.D. 357 (Raj.) wherein the similar condition imposed by the Court below was set aside.

4. A further reference of the judgment in the case of Banshi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 631 has been given, wherein also, same issue was decided.

5. In the case of Nawab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006(1) RCC 487, the condition to furnish bank guarantee was maintained but the amount was reduced. It was held that no statutory requirement exists for submission of bank guarantee, thus there exists no necessity to impose condition to furnish bank guarantee.

6. Lastly, a reference of recent judgment of this Court in the case of Dharam Pal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.3499/2014 decided on 11th September, 2014 has been given. A prayer is accordingly made to quash the order to the extent of imposing condition to furnish bank guarantee.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.

8. The vehicle was confiscated in view of the offence under Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short “Act of 1953”). The vehicle was carrying forest produce. The Revisional Court allowed the application for release of vehicle but by imposing various conditions and, out of it, one is of bank guarantee. The condition to furnish bank guarantee for release of vehicle on “Supurdgi” has been challenged by this criminal misc. petition.

9. The reference of various judgments of this court has been given.

10. In the case of Nawab Singh (supra), imposition of condition to furnish bank guarantee was not found to be necessary in absence of statutory requirement. In all the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor did not refer judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 80. In the aforesaid judgment, the issue for release of property or forest produce was considered and decided. It was held that the property or forest produce should not be released and if an order of its release is passed, reason is to be assigned. In the aforesaid judgment, the practice to release vehicle on “Supurdgi” despite allegation for carrying forest produce has been deprecated, if it is without assigning any reason. If the release of forest produce, vehicle, tool etc. is allowed, then it should be with imposition of condition of bank guarantee. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court was not cited in the cases referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. The relevant para of the judgment in the case of State of Karanataka (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference :

“Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the Authorised Officer or the Appellate Authority has to specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility of such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document