Vibtia paadey @ Vaibhav Paadey, s/o Shri Maheshwar Prasad Paadey, aged about 35 years, occupauon Uneinployed, resident of village Sisriaga, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (ClAattisgarh) Respondefflts 1. State of ChIiattisgaTh, tixrough- It's Secretary, Departinent of Forcst, Dau Kalyan Siagh Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) Conservator of Forest (AppeBate Authority), Forest Circle- Bilaspur Division fVrit Bilaspi^ir) Distt.- BUaspur(C.G.3 3. The Suh Divisional Officer (Forest) aiid Coiupetent Prescribed Aufhonty, Forest Sub Division- Lailunga, Distt.-Raigarll (C.G.) 4. Forest Range OfEcer, Range- Lailunga, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) Shri Ralsesb Pandey, Couiisel for the applicaat. Shri G.K. beriwal, coiuisel for the State/ respoadents. »ilSIH I'iiSl^l^^ ^ll Heard. J. Cr.M.P.No.87/2006 This is a petition fUed u/s 482 of fhe Code of Crimmal procedure for reinoval of ihe condition of fumishing tlie Bank Guaraatee in fhe onler for releasiag the vehicle oa. SupdrufiaTnn. passed by fhe competent authority aad fhe Sub-Divisioual oificer, Lailunga on 8.6.2006 in corLiiection Forest Case No.782/19, ~it n^ 1 n QHO^ -i:L,UO, -LI^.^UtJ^, A perusal of flie order wauld show that fhe vehicle Maxi Pick Up bearing Regn. No.C.G.13-A/6992 was seized by fhe Porest Authorities ia. connection with. the aforesaid Crmie. The atlegation.s are fhat fhis vehicle was iiivolved in. iilegal trEmsportatioa ofcoalworfh Rs.1500/-. It is aa adiuitted fact fhat a proceediilg for confiscation of the vehicle is penduig before the coiupetent Ci.utliori'ty aild duruig the pendeiicy of the said proceediiig tlie coia.peteri.t authority has passed the impiigned ordsr dated 8.6.2006, accorciiiig to which, amongst ofher coaditions it \has directed for production of baxik guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/- by flie appUcaiit for releasiiig the vehicle on his SupurdnaTns.. Leamed counsel for fhe appUcaiit subnuts fhat tbe appUcailt is ready to fuISIl all the conditious i.e. condition nos. 1 to 4, butJ.ie is uiiable to com.ply wifh fhe secoad part of coadition no.4 wllich rela.tes to production of bailk guaraatee. He subinits that fhe condition is^onerous, fherefore, that should be renioyed. In case of a vehicle or any ofher property, liable to be coiiilsca.ted, if the coaceraed authority or the Court conies to the conclusion that it should be given on Supurdi'iama to fhe clamiant, then deDiaiidirig security or guarantee is only for the piupose fhat tlie vehicle or fhe property ia questioa is produced in tiine by the teinporar}' holder ofthe property as per the directions offhe Coiut or tiie aufhorily, That is to say that he is required to be imposed wifh such conditions, which may biacT iTijrt to coinply wifh fhe terms aiid conditions of ffie Supurdivima, oa whicli, the Court or tlie authority has decided to deliver fhe vehicle or the propei'ty O-D. uitermi custody to him.. Needless to say that such tenns aad ^y^^ '^wm jf'.c^i conditions should not be so harsh or onerous tliat tlie person concemed, who is claiming teiaporaT\r possession of the vebicle/propert)r m. question, raay not be able to coi&ply wifh such conditions as are miposed by fhe authority or the Court. !n view offhe abave, I aiii ofthe opiiuon th.at deiaaiidmg baiik gT.iaran.tee to fhe tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- is really an oiierous condition. The ends of justice would be served, if iastead of nii-nishiag a baiik gziaraiiteg, fae applicant is directed to fumish a ....1, solvent surety to ftie tune QfRs.1,50,000/- to fhe satisfaction offbe officer concemed. !n fhe result, fhe petition is aUowed. The second part of condition nc.4 of fh.e impugned order dt.8.6.2006 regai-dilig production of baiik guaraatee is quashed. Instead thereof, fhe petitioner is directed to fumish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concemed aifthority. AU other conditions of the order dated 08.6.2006 are upheld. The said order is raodi&ed to the above extent Emd this petition is also allowed to the extent indicated above. This petition is fiD.aU-v disposed of. . s.iM- Suni! Kumar Sinha Judge