JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards orders dated 2.2.2006 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 127/2005, Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan and dated 8.3.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 281/2006, Ummed Khan v. State of Rajasthan and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of lire case, similar directions may be issued in the present matter also. 3. In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan , this Court carefully considered the question in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, reported in 2000 Cr LR (SC) 657 and found difference in circumstances to lead to the conclusion that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee is onerous and the same may be substituted by the condition of executing personal bond and furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Court. In the said case, it was vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioner that in the State of Rajasthan forest produce is markedly different on account of eco-geological and other governing features and, therefore, the faggot wood collected in the agricultural fields for kitchen fire should not be misnomered for forest produce. It was also considered that in Rajasthan identical shrubs and trees grow in the agricultural fields also as in forests and which is main source of kitchen fire in rural Rajasthan. Having considered the matter on the various aspects, there appeared certain degree of difference Between the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rajasthan Forest Act, therefore, appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case in respect of the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act need also be made in different perspective. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the petition. However, he does not deny the fact that the present case is covered by the order of this Court passed in the case of Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan . 5. Consequently, the impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the petition. However, he does not deny the fact that the present case is covered by the order of this Court passed in the case of Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan . 5. Consequently, the impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside and the impugned order dated 3.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Raisinghnagar (District Sriganganagar) in F.I.R. No. 144/2006, P.S. Muklawa as well as order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 27.11.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 75/2006 are modified to the extent that instead of furnishing the bank guarantee if the petitioner executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishes one solvent security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the vehicle in question may be given on supardginama to the petitioner on the conditions stipulated in the impugned order passed by the Court of fist instance.The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.Petition disposed of. *******