IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2961 OF 2008 Sandip Abasaheb Pansare .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.S.Kode i/by Mr.Mangesh Deshmukh for the Applicant. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 09th September 2008. : 09th September 2008. : 09th September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Heard advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for the State. Taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The applicant claims to be the owner of a Chevrolet Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.MH 16-Q-8841. The vehicle was seized in connection with C.R.No.I/66/2008 registered at Devlali Camp police station, District Nasik . The applicant applied under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for return of the said vehicle. The said application has been allowed by the learned Magistrate by passing the following order: " ORDER : 2 : 2 : 2 : . The seized vehicle i.e Tavera bearing No.MH16/Q-8841 be returned to the applicant on executing indemnity bond of Rs.10,00,000/- along with bank guarantee of like amount on condition that he shall not sell, alter, dispose off or modify the same and shall produce the same in Court as and when ordered by this Court. . Bond to execute in the Court." 3. The grievance of the applicant is as regards the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate of furnishing bank guarantee. He submitted that the forest officer had given no objection and this was a case where investigation of the crime was already over. His submission is that there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to impose a very harsh condition of giving bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/-. The learned A.P.P submitted that the learned Judge was justified in imposing the condition of furnishing bank guarantee. 4. I have considered the submissions. The F.I.R was registered alleging offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 41, 42 and 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The allegation is that the accused in the said case had committed the offence by : 3 : 3 : 3 : using the vehicle of the applicant. The learned trial Judge called for a reply of the forest officer as the offence alleged was a forest offence. The forest officer stated that no confiscation proceedings were initiated in respect of the vehicle. However, the application was opposed by the learned A.P.P. Perusal of the operative part of the order shows that all usual conditions have been imposed for ensuring that the applicant does not sale, alter or dispose of or modify the vehicle. The order ensures that the vehicle shall be produced before the Court as and when ordered by the Court. The applicant is not the accused in the case and neither the State nor the forest officer disputed the ownership of the applicant over the vehicle. The learned Judge has recorded a concession by the forest officer that confiscation proceedings have not been initiated. The learned Judge imposed condition of execution of indemnity bond of Rs.10,00,000/-. Considering the aforesaid facts, there was no justification for imposing a condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- especially when the ownership of the applicant over the vehicle is not disputed. Hence, to that extent the impugned order needs modification. 5. Application is disposed of by passing following order: : 4 : 4 : 4 : (i) The condition imposed by learned Magistrate in order dated 16th July 2008 of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- is deleted. Rest of the conditions incorporated in the order dated 16th July 2008 stand as it is. (ii) Before handing over the custody of the vehicle to the applicant, the applicant will have to give intimation to the R.T.O of the condition of not to sale, alter, dispose of, modify or transfer the vehicle incorporated in the said fporder. (iii) Parties and concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka, J)