1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2300 OF 2010 Ramnath S/o Sitaram Argade ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, advocate for applicant Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 29th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By consent, the application is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned Advocate and the learned A.P.P. 3. By the impugned order, while releasing the vehicle in favour of the applicant, the applicant was directed to furnish Supurtnama in sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which is estimated value of the vehicle as well as to furnish the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. He challenges the second part of the order calling upon him to furnish the bank guarantee. 4. On the face of it, the impugned order reflects 2 arbitrariness in as much as condition imposed on the applicant to furnish bank guarantee is per-se onerous . The purpose of putting condition while releasing vehicle is to secure that the vehicle is kept in the custody of the applicant without causing any damage and is not transferred by him to any third party and is made available as and when required by the Court or by the Competent Authority for the purpose of further action like seizure and sale. Under the circumstances, it will have to be said that the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while releasing the vehicle in favour of the applicant, calling upon him to furnish the bank guarantee is onerous, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned condition stands quashed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri2300.10