LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-375

KESARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On March 04, 2014
KESARAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.1.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (for short 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Case No. 4/2014 whereby the Revisional Court has allowed the revision petition and while ordering for releasing truck (Turbo No. RJ-04-GA 1556) on Supurdaginama, imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- has argued that the petitioner is the registered owner of truck Turbo No. RJ-04-GA 1556 and the said vehicle was seized by the police in relation to F.I.R. No. 8/2014 registered at Police Station, Chitalwana for the offences under Sections 41,42/77 of Rajasthan Forest Act, wherein the police after investigation, has already filed charge-sheet in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore and there is no requirement of the vehicle for the purpose of investigation. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a first offence of the petitioner, he is a poor person and not in a position to fulfil the condition imposed by the Revisional Court. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that If the vehicle In question Is released on Supurdaginama, it will not be used for the purpose of carrying any Illegal product. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle In question Is kept In open for a considerable long period and If It Is not released on Supurdaginama, Its condition will be deteriorated. The petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court In Heera Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2011(1) R.Cr.D. 357 (Raj.).

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and argued that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee Imposed by the Revisional Court Is Just and not liable to be Interfered with.