ORDER : Ravi Nath Verma, J. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in G(f) Case no. 73 of 2012, whereby and where under, the application filed by the petitioner for release of his Truck bearing registration no. JH-02J-8935, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the informant, who is a Forest Guard, intercepted the truck bearing registration no. JH-02J-8935 coming from Kujju Forest Area and found the truck loaded with Pora Coal in bags but the driver anyhow fled away. The vehicle, thereafter, was given in custody to Kujju Police Station. 3. The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of seized vehicle filed a petition for release but the learned court below rejected the prayer on the ground of pendency of confiscation proceeding before competent authority. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. Amresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being the owner of the Truck No. JH-02J-8935 filed an application in the court concerned for its release as it was a commercial vehicle but his prayer has been rejected by the court below holding that since the confiscation proceeding has been initiated, the vehicle in question cannot be released. It was also submitted that even if a confiscation proceeding has been initiated, that would be without jurisdiction as seized Pora Coal never happens to be a forest produce in terms of a definition given under Section 2(iv) of the Indian Forest Act, as pora coal never finds place in the definition of forest produce. 5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the order passed by the court below needs no interference as the confiscation proceeding of the vehicle and the seized material has been initiated. 6. This Court at present is not going into the merit of the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. The truck in question stands seized since 01.02.2012. It is common perception that vehicle is vulnerable to vagaries of nature in case it is kept in open space without adequate care. 7. 6. This Court at present is not going into the merit of the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. The truck in question stands seized since 01.02.2012. It is common perception that vehicle is vulnerable to vagaries of nature in case it is kept in open space without adequate care. 7. In a case Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 S.C.C. 283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the similar issue held that commercial vehicles seized in respect of offence shall not be kept in custody for a very long period. The vehicle owner, in case, approaches for release of the same, prompt action should be taken after preparing necessary Panchnama in case is required, steps shall be taken for identification and also for recording evidence and adopt other appropriate measures, so that in the event the property is subjected to natural decay the evidence is available during proceedings. In paragraph 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows: “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 8. Considering the submissions of the counsel and on perusal of record, it appears that a truck belonging to this petitioner was seized loaded with Pora Coal where after, a case was registered under Section 52-2B and 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner being the registered owner of the truck filed an application for release of the truck but the court below rejected his prayer on that ground that a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated by the D.F.O. but initiation of confiscation proceeding appears to be bad as in terms of Section 2(iv) of the Forest Act, pora coal is not a forest produce. Hence, the rejection on the ground of initiation of confiscation proceeding appears to be unjustified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has given direction to release the vehicle after taking proper and sufficient bank guarantee. In such a situation, the court below is directed to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner after taking bond of Rs. Hence, the rejection on the ground of initiation of confiscation proceeding appears to be unjustified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has given direction to release the vehicle after taking proper and sufficient bank guarantee. In such a situation, the court below is directed to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner after taking bond of Rs. 6,00,000/- and also after taking steps to make a Panchnama and photograph of the vehicle, which shall be kept on record for further use during proceedings, so that the trial/proceeding may not be hampered. The owner of the vehicle would also give an undertaking that he would not dispose of the vehicle or alienate in any way during pendency of the case in court below as well as in confiscation case and would produce the vehicle as and when required. If the petitioner violates any of the term of undertaking given by him and fails to produce the vehicle before the court or before the confiscation authority, the court/authority shall be at liberty to seize the vehicle. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this revision application is, hereby, allowed. The impugned order 12.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in G(F) Case no. 73 of 2012 is, hereby, set aside. This order of release of vehicle will not prejudice the parties and will be subject to the final decision of the confiscation case. Application allowed.