1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1299/2007 (Smt. Bhanwari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 07/12/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. J.S.Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- Notice for final disposal is accepted by learned public prosecutor. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the criminal misc. petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in FIR No.7/25/2007 for the offence under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short the Act of 1972 hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused 2 the order impugned. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the tractor bearing No.RJ-21-RA-3648 is owned by the petitioner and is registered in her name, however, the same was seized under the provisions of the Act of 1972 on the ground that it was found carrying meet of deer. The petitioner moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the tractor in question during pendency of the case. Learned trial court dismissed the application relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 657 on the ground that the tractor is liable to be confiscated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial is likely to take time and if the vehicle is allowed to remain lying for indefinite period, it would expose to the heat, air and rain, resultantly diminishing its value and the tractor is the source of livelihood of the petitioner, therefore, during the pendency of the case, interim custody of the tractor in question may be given to the petitioner on Supardginama and personal bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions of this Court in Nawab Singh Vs. State 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 428 and in Maharaj Singh Vs. State 2006 (2) WLC 482. The decision relied on by the trial court deals with the forest produce where a vehicle was found transporting forest produce in violation of the provisions of Forest Act. The Hon'ble 3 Supreme Court held that if the vehicle is to be released then it is on bank guarantee. In the instant case, there is no allegation of transporting the forest produce. In this view of the matter, the trial court fell in error in declining to release the tractor on Supardginama during pendency of the case. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.7.2007 is set aside and the trial court is directed to give interim custody of the tractor No. RJ-21- RA-3648 in favour of the petitioner on her furnishing a personal bond and Supardginama in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the usual terms and conditions which the trial court thinks fit to impose. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp