SYED KADIR SYED ISAQ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner's vehicle came to be seized in connection with C.R. No. 1/2011, registered at Police Station, Gevrai (District : Beed), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Additional Collector, Beed, on an application made by the petitioner, released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions imposed by the Additional Collector is that, the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which is estimated to be the value of the said vehicle. The petitioner is aggrieved by this condition as, according to him, such a condition is harsh and uncalled for.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to offer a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Additional Collector, in the requisite amount.