S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2009 Sharwan Kumar VS. State of Raj. Dated : 25.05.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Choudhary, PP for the State. *** By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has implored to modify the impugned order dated 26th March, 2009 rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur to the extent that instead of furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.3,50,000/-, the petitioner may be directed to furnish solvent security of the like amount before the competent Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the impugned orders, it is noticed that “Khejadi” wood, in a huge quantity, was being carried in a trolley attached to Tractor bearing registration No.RJ-19-R- 7067, which was seized by the Police Officer. The petitioner filed an application for the release of the Tractor and Trolley, which was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner, as he -2- stands to be the registered owner of the vehicle on his furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.3,50,000/- along with a surety bond of like amount with the stipulation that he would not tamper with the Tractor, shall not hand over it to anyone else and produce the same before the Court as and when called upon to do so. This condition was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur in his revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that in similar two other cases, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had released two vehicles without asking for furnishing the Bank Guarantee and his case tangibly been discriminated by the learned Court, which is not permissible under the provisions of law. I agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forest Rules in Karnataka State are not alike of the Rules of Rajasthan State. The conditions of Karnataka State are altogether different from the conditions of the State of Rajasthan. The condition of asking for Bank Guarantee must have been imposed keeping in view the damage to Sandal Forest, that is not the case in Rajasthan. Hence, I do not find the condition of asking for furnishing the Bank Guarantee to be just and proper in the instant case. -3- Thus, the Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c. is allowed and the Tractor bearing registration No.RJ-19-R-7067 attached with trolley is ordered to be released on furnishing “Supardaginama” in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) together with solvent security of like amount. Other conditions imposed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur, shall remain unchanged. The order dated 26th March, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur, stands modified as indicated hereinabove. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg