KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, public prosecutor accepts the notice on behalf of respondent State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the criminal misc. petition itself is heard and decided at the admission stage.

(2.) By the instant petition under section Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged order dated passed by Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated. passed by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Rajsamand (for short 'the trial court). On an application filed by the petitioner under Section ,Cr.P.C. for releasing the Mini Truck bearing No. RJ-G- on Supardginama, the trial court ordered to release the vehicle in question on the condition of furnishing an irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- and a surety and Supardginama of Rs. 20,00,000/- each. The petitioner being aggrieved by the condition imposed by the trial court for furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- preferred a revision petition before the revisional court. The revisional court dismissed the revision petition. Hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which alleged to have been found carrying wood in contravention of the provisions of the Forest Act and the petitioner is not an accused in the case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish such a huge bank guarantee and the said vehicle is the only source of the livelihood of the petitioner and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed by the trial court to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- is onerous and the vehicle in question may be released in favour of the petitioner on Supurdginama.

(3.) This Court in Jeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) R.Cr.D. 274 Raj. without going into the question as to whether the goods being transported in the vehicle, in fact, is a forest produce or not as defined in the Rajasthan Forest Act, held that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee is onerous and accordingly the condition of bank guarantee has been set aside and vehicle has been ordered to be released on Supardginama. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is yet to be established in the trial as to whether the wood carried in the vehicle or transported, are forest produce or not, in my view, directing the petitioner to give the bank guarantee of Rs. 20,00,000/- appears to be a condition onerous and therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the vehicle in question is released in favour of petitioner on supurdginama on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with one solvent security in the like amount.