Petitioner Mahavir Prasad Agrawal, aged abeut 46 years, sjo Shri Jagat Ram Agrawal, r/o Patthalgaon, Tab. Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpumagar (C. G) ‘ r $1‘ Respondents £ Versus 1. Stat€ of Chhattisgarh, through— It’s 86cmta1y, Department of Fomst, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawaia, Raiyur (ca) 2. Conservator of Forest (Appellats Authority), Forest Cimle- Bilaspur Division (Vrit BilaSpur) Distt.‘ Bilaspur (C. G.) 3.v he Sub, Divisional Officer (Forest) and Competent Authon'sed Oificer, Forest Division— Dharamjaigarh, Distt. -Raigarh (C.G.) 4-. Forest Range Officer, RaJQge— Dharamjaigarh, Distt. -Raigarh we.) Appearance: Shri Rakesh Pandey, Counsel for the applicant. Shn' G,K. bexiwal, counsel for the State] respondeni‘s. ORAL ORDER (02.05.2007) Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Heard‘ EHQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR €r.M.P. No.102 of 2006 PETITI9N UNDER SECTXGN 482 OF THE CGDE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE ‘2 Cr.M.P.N0. 102/2006 This pau'tion u/ s 482 Cr.P.C. has b€en tiled by the applicarlt being aggrieved with the order dated 10—4—2006 passed by respondent no.2, Conservater 9f ForeSt (Appellate Authority)) by which the said authoa'ty while allowing the appeal of the applicant for releasing the seized Vehicle (Truck) on Supmdnama_directed that the said vehicle of the applicant shall be given on Supmdnama to him after producing a bank guarantee equivalent to pn'ce of the vehicle (Truck). It appears that the Truck of the applicant bearing Regn No C G 12 C/028o was seized by the Forest Department in connection With Forest Crime No 774/ 19 dated 17 5 2005 and a proceeding of confiscation is pending before the competent authority. During the pendency of connscation proceeding, the applicant moved an application for releasing the vehicle on $upurdnama to the competent authority, on which, the order dated 10.3.2005 Was passed by him and the prayer was negatived with a direction that firstly the applicant should record his statement and should produce the documents of his vehicle, thereafter his application for Supurdnama will be considered. Against the said order passed by the competent authority the aforesaid appeal Was filed before respondent no.2, in which the respondent no.2 passed the, impugned order dated 10.4.2006 which is the subject matter of this petition. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the condition regarding provision of Bank Guarantee is not only vague but th same is onerous. He prays for quashment of the aforesaid condition imposed by the appellate authority in its order dated 10.4.2006 and also for issuance of reasonable direction which should be followed by the respondent authorities in the matter of releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama till disposal of the confiscation proceeding pending before them. w; e 3 Cr.M.P.N(). 10212006 In casa of a vehicle or any othsr pmperty, h'able to b coniiscated, if the concerned authority or the Court comes 1:0 m6 conclusion that it should be given on Supurdnama to the claimant, thcn demanding security or guarailtee is only for 1116 purpose that the vehicle or the property in question is produced in fi‘me by the temporary holoer of the property as per the directions of the Court or the authority. That is to say that he is required to be imposed with such conditions, which may bind him to comply with the terms a11cl conditions of the Supurdnama: Ion which, the Court or the authority has decided to deliver the vehicle or the property on irlterim custody to him. Needless to say that such terms and conditions should not be so harsh or onerous that the person x concerned, who is claiming temporary possession of the vehicle/ property in question, may not be able to comply with such conditions as are imposed by the authority or the Court. In View of the above, in the opinion of this Court, demanding bank guarantee equivalent to the price of the seized vehicle (truck) from the owner of a second hand vehicle appears to be an onerous condition. The ends of justice would be served, if instead of bank guarantee, the applicant is directed to furnish a solvent surety to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/3 which appears to be the price of the I vehiclelto the satisfaction of the authority concerned. The condition of furnishing bank guarantee is hereby quashed. It is directed that die vehicle shall he released on Supurdnama to the applicant on the following conditions: 1, The applicant shall execute a Supurdnama to the tune of Rs.5,50,000,l— to the satisfaction of th concerned authority. 2. Before delivery of the vehicle, an inventory of the accessories would be recorded by the concerned authority and a photograph of the vehicle will also be taken. w; e e 4 Cr.M.P.No.102/2006 ()A The applicant shall not a}ienate, or in any mmer transfer or handover to anybody or create a third party interest on the vehicle till the final disposal of the aforesaid case pending before the concerried authority and he shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the said authority. 4. The solvent surety to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/— to the satisfaction of the concerned authority shall a“: also be furnished by the applicant ensuring compliance of the aforesaid terms of Supurdnamd :a» x This petition stands allowed with the terms indicated above and the order dated 10.4.2006 stands modified accordingly F/JJ» Sdl- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge Rao