JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') on an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. The learned trial court vide order dated 30.10.2014, allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the truck No.RJ 21 GA 6011 on Supurdaginama, however, imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with surety bonds of like amount. The said truck was seized by the Police Station, Gotan on account of an accident, which took place on 26.4.2014. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the same was rejected on 17.11.2014. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle in question was manufactured in the year 1995 and the trial court has erred in directing the petitioner to submit a bank guarantee of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It is submitted that at present, the cost of the vehicle in question is not more than Rs. 1,50,000/-, therefore, the condition of depositing bank guarantee of Rs. 7,00,000/- imposed by the trial court for releasing the vehicle in question on supurdaginama may be modified and petitioner may be allowed to furnish a reasonable bank guarantee. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 7. Looking to the fact that manufacturing year of the truck in question is 1995, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court is not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 7,00,000/- as the same is certainly excess. 8. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The other conditions imposed by the trial court vide order dated 30.10.2014 are not interfered with. 9. With these observations, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******