SURENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for modification of the order dated 02.4.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.6882/2018 wherein the vehicle (JCB) bearing registration No.MP66/D-0535 was ordered to be released on 'supradnama' amongst other conditions to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs [Rupees Five Lacs] and personal bond of Rs.10 lacs [Rupees Ten lacs] with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has obtained the Bank loan to purchase JCB. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bond and surety. The petitioner is not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee as directed by this Court and, therefore, the order dated 02.4.2018 be modifed to that extent. On behalf of the petitioner it is further strenuously argued that the petitioner is a man of limited resources and is not in a position to furnish the Bank Guarantee. Therefore, the condition be removed or atleast it should be reduced to Rs.3 lacs [Rupees Three lacs]. The petitioner has to pay instalments etc.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent/State the petition is opposed vehemently and contended that the vehicle (JCB) is costing Rs.30 lacs approximately, therefore, the order dated 02.4.2018 directing to furnish the Bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs is not excessive. It would be appropriate to mention that in State of Karnataka Vs, 2000 7 SCC 80 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while dealing with the offence under the Forest Act the provisions of the Act should be strictly complied with. Generally the seized forest produce and the vehicle, boat, tools, etc. used in commission of forest offence should not be released. Even if, court is inclined to release the same, the authorized officer must specify reasons therefor and must insist on furnishing of bank guarantee as the minimum condition. It is also observed that forest produce transported in violation of provisions of the Act, should not be dealt with liberal approach, which would perpetuate the commission of more offences. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also the protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. When any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come.