ORDER : The petitioner has filed this petition to quash and set aside a portion of the order dated 27-5-2019 passed in Crime No.49/2019 of Bharamasagar Police Station on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the General Power of Attorney holder of RC owner of tractor and trailer, bearing Registration No.KA16 TA9553 and KA16 T2126 which was seized by the Bharamasagar Police in Crime No.49/2019 on the allegation that the vehicle in question was found transporting the sand without licence and the vehicle was subjected to P.F. No.30/2019 of the respondent Police. The petitioner being a General Power of Attorney holder of the vehicle filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) before the trial Court for release of the vehicle. The same came to be allowed by imposing certain conditions including a condition that the petitioner shall furnish a renewable bank guarantee for Rs.2,60,000/- in the name of the Court in a Nationalised Bank vide its order dated 27-5-2019 and the same was challenged by the petitioner before the Principal District and -Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Cr.R.P. No.70 of 2019 which came to be dismissed on 7-6-2019. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of imposing a condition for releasing the vehicle to furnish bank guarantee is not sustainable since the Police do not have jurisdiction to register a case under the KMMC Rules and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the MMRD Act’) and the authority is required to file a private complaint before the Special Court which is the District Court as per Section 30B of the MMRD Act. This Court has already clarified that the Police cannot register a case under MMRD Act except under Indian Penal Code (for short, the I.P.C.’). Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable and further contended that this Court in various cases directed the trial Court to release the vehicle by accepting the indemnity bond. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition. 6. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable and further contended that this Court in various cases directed the trial Court to release the vehicle by accepting the indemnity bond. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition. 6. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. The vehicle in question has been seized by the Police in Crime No.49/2019 for the offences registered under the MMRD Act and also under Section 379 of the I.P.C. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI VIVEK AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Criminal Petition No.6279 of 2017 disposed of on 15.11.2017 issued guidelines that the Police is at liberty to register a case and investigate the offences under I.P.C. and the Mines and Geology Department is required to file a private complaint before the Special Court under the MMRD Act. This Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.559 of 2019 dated 26-4-2019 in a similar case allowed the petition by modifying the order of the trial Court by relying upon the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.490 of 2019 dated 6-2-2019 in the case of FAYAZ v. SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER and directed to furnish an indemnity bond instead of bank guarantee. Such being the case, the petitionerRC owner is required to execute an indemnity bond instead of bank guarantee. Imposing of conditions for executing indemnity bond or insisting bank guarantee is only for the purpose of recovering the vehicle, if the offence is proved before the Court of law. Therefore, the order under challenge for furnishing bank guarantee is required to be modified into furnishing indemnity bond, which will meet the ends of justice. 7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order of the trial Court furnishing the bank guarantee is to be modified as indemnity bond. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. 7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order of the trial Court furnishing the bank guarantee is to be modified as indemnity bond. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The order of furnishing security in form of renewal of bank guarantee is set aside and modified as furnishing indemnity bond for Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees three lakh only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court. iii. The remaining conditions imposed by the trial Court hold good.