{1} CWP No.417/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.417 OF 2011 Hitesh Govindlal Pokharna PETITIONER Age-32 years, Occ-Business R/o Pravara Nagar, Tq-Rahata Dist-Ahmednagar VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar Dist-Ahmednagar 3. The District Supply Officer, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar 4. The Police Inspector, Loni Police Station, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar ....... Mr. A.K.Gawali, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3 rd October 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by {2} CWP No.417/2011 consent of the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar by which the vehicle of the petitioner is allowed to be returned on the condition that the petitioner to deposit an amount of the vehicle, in the police station. 3. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was seized in connection with Crime No.12/2010 registered with Loni Police station, Dist-Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The vehicle is seized under Panchanama dated 12.06.2010. It appears that the petitioner had moved an application seeking return of property, which came to be rejected by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 16.06.2010 thereby observing that he is not competent to pass the order of return of vehicle in respect of the offence under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 seeking return of the vehicle. Learned Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, vide order dated 26.07.2010, allowed the application {3} CWP No.417/2011 of the petitioner, however on the condition that the vehicle to be returned after the petitioner deposits the amount of the vehicle in the police station. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner followed by learned APP. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the financial condition of the petitioner is weak. Considering the submissions advanced before me, the order, impugned in the petition requires to be modified. The purpose behind directing the petitioner to deposit the amount is to secure the presence of the vehicle at the time of trial. I think it appropriate that this purpose would be served if the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the cost of the vehicle before the concerned competent authority. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. Condition No.3, in the impugned order, is modified to the effect that the vehicle be returned to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee of the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,30,000/-. The concerned competent authority to accept the guarantee of the {4} CWP No.417/2011 bank, as is permissible in law. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/cwp417-11