JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. praying that the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate that the truck in dispute be given in supurdgi of a person from three places mentioning in the order who furnishes a surety in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not in the interest of justice and under the facts and in the circumstances of this case amounts to the abuse of the process of the court. 3. In a case under Sec. 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. a Truck No. RJI 1834 was seized by the police during the investigation of the case. The petitioners are the registered owners of the said truck. They moved an application that the truck be given in their supurdagi during the trial and the learned Magistrate ordered that the truck be given in supurdgi of the owners i. e. the petitioners provided they furnish a surety in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- of persons belonging to Sikar, Nawalgarh or Jhunjhunu area. The petitioners preferred are vision before the learned Sessions Judge. Jhunjhunu, who dismissed the same observing that it was not maintainable being a revision against an inter-locutory is order, but further observed that the petitioners should move again before the learned Magistrate who will pass an order in accordance with law. Thereafter the petitioners moved before the learned Magistrate who refused to modify his order dated 17-9-1979. 4. The submission of the learned Advocate is that the learned Magistrate has laid down such a condition that it is impossible for the petitioners to comply and as such the order virtually amounts to refusing the supurdagi of the truck to the petitioners till the disposal of the trial. He submits that normally in a case of accident under Sec. 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. the presence of the truck will not be required and the petitioners are residents of Ganga Nagar District and are willing to furnish surety of persons belonging to Ganga Nagar District. 5. Under Sec. 457 (2) Cr. P. C. if the person entitled to the possession of the property seized by the police during the investigation of the case is known the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions if any, as the Magistrate thinks fit. 5. Under Sec. 457 (2) Cr. P. C. if the person entitled to the possession of the property seized by the police during the investigation of the case is known the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions if any, as the Magistrate thinks fit. The conditions should be reasonable and the only purpose to impose conditions is that as and when the property is required to be produced by the court the same may be produced by the supurdagir. The learned Magistrate has observed that it is general experience that if the trucks are given in supurdagi to the person residing outside Rajasthan than it becomes difficult to secure the presence of the supurdagir or to get the property. The trial of the case is also delayed, and, therefore, he imposed the conditions that the surety should belong to Nawalgarh, Sikar or Jhunjhunu area. But to my mind no such condition can be imposed and though in Motiram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1978 S. C. 1703 the case was with regard to demanding surety from a person because of an offence, but on the same analogy it can be said that no such condition as laid down by the Magistrate can be laid down. It was observed in Motirams case as follows : "To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district ? (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalees, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Bkair, Pahalgam or Chandani Chowk ? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language applications ? What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district ? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic sometimes legalistic. Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 250 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic sometimes legalistic. Art. 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art. 250 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indian aliens in their own homeland, Swaraj is made of united stuff". With the increase of road-transport the trucks have to pass through various Indian territories. If an accident takes place because of the negligence of the driver in some territory and a case is registered then it will be too much to ask the owners of the truck to furnish surety of persons belonging to that area. If such conditions are imposed by and large it will be denying the custody of the truck to its owners during the trial of the case because the owners may not be able to find a person willing to stand surety for him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no such conditions could or should have been imposed by the learned Magistrate. Anyhow the learned Advocate is willing to furnish a surety from Ganganagar which is a part of Rajasthan.The application is, therefore, accepted and it is hereby directed that the petitioner will only furnish solvent surety of a person living in India. Anyhow because they are willing to furnish surety belonging to Ganganagar they may do so.Appeal accepted. *******