JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 174/2012 whereby the learned revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner upheld and affirmed the order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in respect of First information Report No. 103/2007 registered at Police Station Jamua-Ramgarh (District Jaipur) whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 14.10.2012 a tractor trolly bearing Registration No.MF- 1035 was seized by the competent authority under the provisions of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 on the premises that the same was being used to transport forest produce i.e. stones without any valid license and permit escavated from forest area. In this regard necessary seizure memo was prepared on 14.10.2012 and FIR was also registered. For interim release of the aforesaid vehicle, the petitioner claiming to be registered owner, moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate who after hearing both the parties dismissed the same vide order dated 03.11.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition and the same was also dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned order dated 29.11.2012. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this criminal misc. petition. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle is lying in an open place at the police station and due to absence of proper care etc., the condition of vehicle is deteriorating day to day. It was further submitted that the seized vehicle is no more required for the investigation and trial of the case will take long time and therefore, the vehicle be released to the petitioner as he is the registered owner thereof. It was also submitted that in several cases even in offences committed under provisions of Rajasthan Forest Act, this Hon'ble High Court has ordered to release the seized vehicle on "Supurdginama" without demanding bank guarantee. 5. It was also submitted that in several cases even in offences committed under provisions of Rajasthan Forest Act, this Hon'ble High Court has ordered to release the seized vehicle on "Supurdginama" without demanding bank guarantee. 5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is well settled legal position that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence and if for any exceptional reasons Court is inclined to release the vehicle during pendency of the case, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. It was further submitted that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the seized vehicle is to be temporarily released to the petitioner, bank guarantee for sufficient amount is required to be taken from him. 6. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal position. I find it a fit case in which the seized vehicle is required to be released on the "Supurdginama" of the petitioner but at the same time a condition is also required to be imposed that he will furnish bank guarantee of Rs.One lac to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K.Krishnan reported in 2000 (7) SCC 80 has held that if any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be minimum condition. Therefore, condition of obtaining bank guarantee is a condition precedent for releasing a vehicle in such a case. Apart from that, from the provisions of Rajasthan Forest Act it is further clear that the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated by the competent Court or authority after completion of confiscation proceedings. Therefore, condition of obtaining bank guarantee is a condition precedent for releasing a vehicle in such a case. Apart from that, from the provisions of Rajasthan Forest Act it is further clear that the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated by the competent Court or authority after completion of confiscation proceedings. I am of the view that in a case in which the vehicle is liable to be confiscated and the person concerned fails to produce the same, furnishing of bank guarantee will facilitate the realisation of the amount as confiscation of a vehicle ultimately results loss of its value to its owner. 7. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is partly allowed and orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for temporary release of the aforesaid vehicle is allowed. It is ordered that the aforesaid vehicle shall be released on the "Supurdginama" to the petitioner on the usual conditions which will be determined by the trial Court. It is also ordered that apart from "Supurdginama", the petitioner shall furnish irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs. One lac to the satisfaction of the trial Court from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from time to time till the disposal of the case in which the aforesaid vehicle has been seized. It is also ordered that the applicant shall not alienate the aforesaid vehicle during pendency of the case. *******