JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This application, filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., was admitted by this court on 22nd November, 1982. and notice was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor, who accepted the same. The case came up for orders on 1st December 1982, and the arguments were heard for both the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated 10th Sept, 1982, by which he has ordered that the seized truck may he handed over to the accused petitioner, Ujagar Singh, provided he deposits Rs. 25,000/- in cash or gives a bank-guarantee for the same amount or furnishes a security for Rs. 11/2 lakhs, and two sureties of Rs. 75,000/- each from a resident of Tonk or Jaipur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned Sessions Judge could not have made any discrimination on geographical ground, and that he should not have insisted that the sureties should be from Tonk or Jaipur. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Motiram and other v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (A.I.R. 1978 S.C.1594) , wherein, in para No. 32, it has been held that no discrimination on the ground of geographic languistic or legalistic basis can be placed while asking for sureties. It is true that that was a case in which personal liberty of the petitioner in that case was concerned, but, the said principle is applicable to the present case as well, and it is not proper to insist that the sureties should be from a particular geographical area. 4. Therefore, I, while upholding the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated 10th September, 1982, modify the same only to the extent that the two sureties of Rs. 75.000/- can be from any person, who is a resident of India, and not necessarily of Tonk or Jaipur. 5. With these observations, the application is decided accordingly. *******