ORDER : 1. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent-State. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash condition No. 2 imposed by V Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Shivamogga in Crime No. 489/2019 (Court C.R. No. 1120/2019) dated 06.01.2020 of Tunganagar Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 3. Facts of the case are that on 05.12.2019 at about 4.00 p.m. police were on patrolling duty. At that time, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-14-TB-1091 and KA-14-TMP/2018-10403 came loaded with filter sand and the petitioner/accused was not having any permit or license to transport the same. On the basis of the same, the said vehicle has been seized and a case has been registered. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused being the owner of the tractor and trailer filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the said vehicle. Learned Magistrate after hearing both sides, by order dated 06.01.2020 allowed the application by imposing certain conditions. For having imposed condition No. 2, the petitioner/accused is before this Court. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner/accused that the said tractor and trailer belongs to the petitioner/accused and petitioner is a poor agriculturist. Condition No. 2 imposed by the Court as against petitioner/accused is harsh and as per the condition, he is unable to produce the bank guarantee as ordered by the Court. It is further submitted that he is ready to abide by other conditions which may be imposed by this Court except condition No. 2. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the learned Magistrate after exercising the due discretion has passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in passing the said order. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-14-TB-1091 and KA-14-TMP/2018-10403 and the same has been seized in Crime No. 489/2019. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-14-TB-1091 and KA-14-TMP/2018-10403 and the same has been seized in Crime No. 489/2019. It is also not in dispute that the said application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the learned Magistrate while releasing the said tractor and trailer has imposed the following conditions: “1. The petitioner is hereby directed to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with one surety for the like-sum. 2. The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- or deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- cash surety. 3. The P.S.I. Tunganagara Police Station has to release the Tractor bearing Reg. No. KA-14/TB-1092 and Trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-14-TMP/2018-10406 to the interim custody of the petitioner on scrutiny of the original records pertaining to the said vehicle by keeping copies of necessary documents duly attested. 4. The P.S.I. Tunganagara Police Station drawn mahazar in respect of release of vehicle. He is further directed to obtain necessary photographs of the said vehicle from four directions (four in numbers) at the cost of the petitioner and to submit the same along with negatives, with final report. 5. The owner shall not sell the said vehicle without prior permission of the Court. HE is further directed to produce the said vehicle in the same condition before the Court whenever directed. Further owner shall not change the nature, colour of the vehicle until the disposal of the case.” 8. On going through the order dated 06.01.2020, it indicates that the second condition which has been imposed appears to be very harsh that imposition of furnishing of a Bank Guarantee is not warranted while releasing the said vehicle, since the said vehicle is not involved in MMRD Act. The learned Magistrate has not kept into view the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. 9. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances of the fact, I am of the considered opinion that if condition No. 2 is set aside, then it is going to meet the ends of justice. 9. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances of the fact, I am of the considered opinion that if condition No. 2 is set aside, then it is going to meet the ends of justice. Further, learned Trial Court is hereby directed to release the said vehicle, take the photographs of the said vehicle from all angle and the petitioner/accused to file an affidavit to the effect that he will not object the identify of the said vehicle. 10. With the above observations, petition is allowed and insofar as condition No. 2 is concerned, Condition No. 2 imposed by order dated 06.01.2020 is set aside.