The court may modify harsh conditions for the release of seized property (muddamal) by allowing the substitution of a bank guarantee with a solvent surety, consistent with precedents set by coordinate benches.

ORDER

1. Looking to the issue involved in the present matter, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested for disposal of the present petition at an admission stage and, hence, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent.

3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India read with the provisions of the BNSS , the petitioner has prayed for modification of one of the conditions imposed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, while passing an order dated 12.03.2026 in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 2026, by which, the petitioner is directed to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the seized muddamal vehicle, along with personal surety of the same amount.

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that muddamal vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift bearing registration No. GJ-06-RD-2037 under the ownership of the petitioner was seized by the concerned authority for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 as well as the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining and Transportation and Storage) Rules. The petitioner has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 13 of 2026 before the learned learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, which is allowed vide order dated 12.03.2026; however, a condition was imposed, whereby petitioner has to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the seized muddamal vehicle, along with personal surety of the same amount. The petitioner, therefore, preferred present petition.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the muddamal vehicle and petitioner is carrying on the business of transportation, however as stated above, the muddamal vehicle was seized by the concerned authority on allegation that it was involved in illegal mining and transportation of minor mineral. He further submitted that in fact, the condition imposed by the learned Court concerned is too harsh and it is not possible for the petitioner to fulfill the same. He submits that instead of bank guarantee, petitioner is ready and willing to give solvent surety of the same amount and therefore the said order may be modified to that extent. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon and referred to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that in similar type of cases, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed order, whereby, the concerned owners were directed to furnish solvent surety instead of bank guarantee.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition and contended that the Sessions Court has not committed any error while imposing the aforesaid condition and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it appears that in similar type of cases, the Coordinate Bench as well as this Court has considered the request of the concerned owner to furnish solvent surety instead of bank guarantee. Therefore in the facts of the present case, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

9. The petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, while passing an order dated 12.03.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13 of 2026, is hereby modifi