[2025:RJ-JP:33658] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4066/2025 Manbhar W/o Padam, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Banjaro Ka Mohalla, Sunthli, Dhanugaon, District Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/08/2025 1. Petitioner is stated to be registered owner of the pickup vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 25 GA 2301 which came to be seized in connection with FIR No. 49/2025 registered at Police Station Deikhera, District Bundi, for the offences under Sections 125 and 106(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. Petitioner moved an application for release of his vehicle on Supurdginama. The concerned Judicial Magistrate, vide its order dated 15.05.2025, though has ordered to release the vehicle but has imposed a condition to furnish a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs). 3. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee, preferred a criminal revision petition against the order dated 15.05.2025, but same has been dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2025 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bundi. [2025:RJ-JP:33658] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4066/2025] 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that condition of furnishing of Bank Guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- is onerous and unjustified. Further, his grievance is that the present condition of seized vehicle is not like a new vehicle and petitioner is a labour class person, hence, in such circumstances, a condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) is too onerous, unjustified and violative to the legal right of petitioner to get release the vehicle on Supurdginama. 5. However, during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner having instructions from the petitioner, has agreed to furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs) and Supurdginama of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs), in place of furnishing of Bank Guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) and prays to release his vehicle on such conditions. 6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of State of Kerala V. A.A.Ali [(2019) 14 SCC 800], wherein the Apex Court directed to release the vehicle without insisting for Bank guarantee. Reliance has also been placed on Ramesh Kumar V. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 799], wherein the condition to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs.2 lac has been held to be onerous and unjustified. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, condition of the vehicle in issue, the case in which it has been seized and in view of judgment of the Apex Court in A.A.Ali (Supra) and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ramesh Kumar (Supra), this Court finds that the [2025:RJ-JP:33658] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4066/2025] condition of bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/- is onerous and unjustified, therefore, instead of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-, petitioner shall furnish Rs. 2,00,000/- as bank guarantee and Rs. 3,00,000/- as supurdgi. 8. Rest of the conditions, to release the vehicle in question, as fixed by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15.05.2025, shall remain same. 9. With aforesaid directions, instant misc. petition stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/41