- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the learned Judge while handing-over the custody of the tractor and trolly, in dispute, to the petitioner, has imposed a condition that the petitioner should give a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with a surety of the like amount. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the imposition of the condition of giving a bank guarantee is too onerous to be fulfill by the petitioner. Relying on the case of Banshi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1354/2010, decided on 06th August, 2010), the learned counsel has pleaded that in place of a bank guarantee, the petitioner should be directed, in fact, to give a solvent surety of the same amount. Mr. Laxman Meena, the learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, has not objected looking to the order passed by this Court in the case of Banshi Lal (Supra).
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) Considering the judgment of Banshi Lal (Supra), this Court directs that the petitioner shall submit a solvent surety of Rs.4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned court in place of a bank guarantee of Rs.4,00,000/-. Upon his submitting the solvent surety, the tractor and trolly, in question, be handed-over to the petitioner.;