JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Tiwari accepts notice. 3. 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 7.3.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 271/2006, Nihal Singh v. Stale of Rajasthan and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, similar directions may be issued in the present matter also. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the petition. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the facts and circumstances of the present case are different and the learned trial Court has categorically found that timber was being transported in the truck at the time of the seizure. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said timber was purchased by him under receipt memo duly issued by the Forest Department and there was no illegal transportation of the forest produce as such. It is argued by him that the learned trial Court itself has observed in the impugned order that it can only be adjudicated upon the question of there being inadvertent omission of date and time in the receipt memo by appreciation and examination of the evidence coming on record. Therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel that at this juncture it cannot be presumed that there was any illegal transportation of forest produce in vehicle in question. Adverting to the case of Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan decided by this Court on 2.2.2006 (supra), it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said case this Court considered the hardship of furnishing bank guarantee and, therefore, the onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee was substituted by execution of bonds to the satisfaction of the Court for the purpose of releasing the vehicle on supardginama. 6. I have perused the impugned order and carefully considered the rival submissions. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be substituted by the condition of executing personal bond in the like amount and, accordingly the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be substituted by the condition of executing personal bond in the like amount and, accordingly the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- is set aside and the impugned order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar (District Sriganganagar) in F.I.R. No. 78/2007 is modified to the extent that instead of furnishing the bank guarantee if the petitioner executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and furnishes one solvent security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the vehicle in question, truck bearing registration No. RJ/19 - G - 5123 may be given on supardginama to the petitioner on the conditions stipulated in the impugned order. 8. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order dated 16.3.2007.Petition dismissed of. *******