JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri A. Shelat, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The vehicle of the petitioner is seized in connection with crime registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 109 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle which is granted by the learned District Magistrate (Collector), Nagpur imposing several conditions. One of the condition is that the petitioner will furnish bank guarantee for the amount equivalent to 50% of value of the vehicle. The petitioner has filed this application seeking modification of the above condition. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate cannot be complied with by the petitioner and in effect it will amount to rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle. It is submitted that instead of furnishing bank guarantee, the petitioner may be permitted to furnish solvent surety for the amount equivalent to 50% of value of the vehicle. In support of this submission, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments : (i) Judgment given by this Court in the case of Syed Kadir Syed Isaq v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1704. (ii) Judgment given by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 502/2009 on 09-12-2009. (iii) Judgment given by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 999/2014 on 05-12-2014. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, however, she has not been able to point out as to why the relaxation of condition is not possible, looking to the nature of allegations against the petitioner. 6. Hence, the following order : (i) Condition No. 3 imposed by the learned District Magistrate while ordering release of vehicle by the order dated 14-01-2016 is modified and the petitioner is permitted to furnish solvent surety for the amount equivalent to 50% of value of the vehicle. (ii) The petition is allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.