[2025:RJ-JP:24786] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3012/2025 Mohammad Javed S/o Fakir Mohammad Khan, Resident Of Azad Mohalla, Jaliya-2, Ajmer through Power of Attorney Holder Ayub Shah S/o Shakur Shah, R/o Naya Jorawpura, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/07/2025 1. In the instant misc. criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, Division Kota to the extent to which fine has been imposed for releasing the vehicle on Supurdagi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one FIR No. 155/2024 was registered at Police Station Suket, Kota Rural for committing offences under Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. While acting pursuant to aforesaid FIR, vehicle No. MH-10-CR-2745 was seized by police authorities during investigation. [2025:RJ-JP:24786] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3012/2025] 3. The case of petitioner is that after seizure of the aforesaid vehicle, he filed one application before the District Magistrate, Kota for releasing the vehicle on Supurdagi as the petitioner was ready and willing to submit the bond in this regard however, such application was dismissed by the District Magistrate vide order dated 16.07.2024. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Divisional Commissioner, Kota against the order of District Magistrate. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Kota vide order dated 26.03.2025 and directions have been given to release the vehicle on Supurdagi however, while giving such directions, condition of depositing 50% of the insurance amount of the vehicle has been imposed, which is not only oppressive, but is also causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. He prayed for waiving such condition in the instant criminal misc. petition. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing his prayer to waive the condition of depositing 50% of the insurance amount as security for the purpose of releasing the vehicle on Supurdaginama, has placed reliance on order dated 23.11.2023 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5903/2023 (Shree Azad Vs. SHO Police Station Chiksana) and order dated 05.12.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2223/2024 (Bhairu Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 7. It has been observed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shree Azad (Supra) as under: [2025:RJ-JP:24786] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3012/2025] In the case of Rashid Vs. State of Rajasthan rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No.9311/2022 decided on 27.01.2023, no confiscation proceedings had started, however, the court below refused to give interim custody of the vehicle to its owner. Vide order dated 08.09.2022, Co-ordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Cr.L.M.P No. 664/2022 directed interim custody of the vehicle to the owner on production of bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three Lakh). The amount of bank guarantee was modified by Hon’ble Supreme Court and reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) in SLP Criminal No.3911/2022. Accepting the same reasoning, it would be just and proper to give interim custody of the above referred vehicle to registered owner on execution of bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh alongwith two sureties of like amount). 8. In the case of Bhairu Singh while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Vs. State of Rajasthan SLP Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9311/2022 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that in fact the word “fine” is in the nature of security for release of the vehicles. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding SLP Criminal No.9311/2022, no confiscation proceedings had started, however, the court below refused to give interim custody of the vehicle to its owner. Vide order dated 08.09.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in S.B. CRLMP No.6641/2022 directed interim custody of the vehicle to the owner on production of bank guarantee of Rs.3,00,000/- (three Lakh), but the amount of bank guarantee was modified by the Hon’ble [2025:RJ-JP:24786] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3012/2025] Supreme Court and reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) while deciding SLP Criminal No.9311/2022. Accepting the same reasoning, it would be just and proper to give interim custody of the above referred vehicles to registered owners on execution of bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) each alongwith two sureties of like amount. 9. I have examined the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the light of aforesaid orders earlier passed by this Court in the case of Shree Azad (Supra) and Bhairu Singh (Supra) and by accepting the same reasoning, it would be just and proper to give interim custody of the above referred vehicle to the registered owner of the vehicle on execution of bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount. 11. Since, the respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction by imposing fine, therefore, the impugned orders stand quashed only to the extent of imposing fine. All the conditions with regard to non-transferring of the vehicle during pendency of the criminal case imposed by the concerned authority shall be maintained as it is. 12. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of in view of above. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/52