Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition under Section 482 has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur by which the court below refused to release the Tractor with Trolley on 'supurdaginama'.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sadhu Ram v. State of Raj., 2013 (3) Criminal Court Cases 044 (Rajasthan) : 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 403 to contend that vehicle which is liable to confiscation can be released on furnishing of a bank guarantee. The co-ordinate Bench in the judgment relied, has held as under: "On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal position, I find it a fit case in which the seized vehicle is required to be released on the Supurdginama' of the petitioner but at the same time a condition is also required to be imposed that he will furnish bank guarantee of Rs.One lac to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishnan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 80 has held that if any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not be normally be returned to the 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 minimum condition. Therefore, condition of obtaining bank guarantee is a condition precedent for releasing as vehicle in such a case. Apart from that, from the provision of Rajasthan Forest Act, it is further clear that the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated by the competent court or authority after completion of confiscation proceedings. I am of the view that in a case in which the vehicle is liable to be confiscated and the person concerned fails to produce the same, furnishing of bank guarantee will facilitate the realisation of the amount as confiscation of a vehicle ultimately results loss of its value of its owner. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is partly allowed and orders passed by both the Courts below are set aisde and the application filed by the petitioner for temporary release of the aforesaid vehicle is allowed. It is ordered that the aforesaid vehicle shall be released on the Superdginama' to the petitioner on the usual conditions which will be determined by the trial Court. It is also ordered that apart from Superdaginama' the petitioner shall furnish irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs.One lac to the satisfaction of the trial court from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from time to time till the disposal of the case in which the aforesaid vehicle has been seized. It is also ordered that the applicant shall not alienate the aforesaid vehicle during pendency of the case."
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to distinguish the judgment relied.;