ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Petitioner has preferred the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the additional condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 6 lac, apart from furnishing 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' for the same worth imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 Kota while allowing the Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2023 with other conditions incorporated therein, to release the petitioner's vehicle being Creta Car RJ-20-CF-9932 seized in FIR No.(*) 212/2022 registered at Police Station Gumanpura, Kota for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The order dated 25.05.2023 has been put to challenge only to the extent of imposing the condition to furnish the bank guarantee. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle 'Creta Car' which was seized by the police while registering the afore-referred FIR and after submission of charge-sheet, petitioner moved an application to release the vehicle but the same was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Kota vide order dated 17.01.2023 with observation that the vehicle in question was purchased by funds of Investors and has been seized as an evidence in the criminal case. 3. Petitioner challenged the order dated 17.01.2023 by way of filing Criminal Revision Petition No.148/2023. The Revisional Court being Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Kota has set aside the order dated 17.01.2023 and observed that prima facie, it appears that the vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner from the loan amount taken from the State Bank of India and it is a matter of evidence that any amount of Investors was used to purchase the vehicle. The revisional Court observed that obviously the vehicle would be damaged, as also its utility would be deteriorated with the passage of time, if same is allowed to continue to be seized during the course of trial, therefore, following the ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], allowed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on terms and conditions as indicated in the order dated 25.05.2023. The revisional Court apart from other conditions to furnish 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. The revisional Court apart from other conditions to furnish 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6 lac, also directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 6 lac. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition to furnish the bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 6 lac, as imposed by the Revisional Court in the order dated 25.05.2023 to release the vehicle to the petitioner, is onerous and unjustified in facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of other conditions imposed in the order dated 25.05.2023 that the petitioner would not transfer/ alienate the vehicle in question and would produce the vehicle before the Court as and when warranted as much as petitioner is required to furnish 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' for worth of Rs. 6 lac, therefore, the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee be deleted/ set aside, since the same is arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala v. A.A.Ali [ (2019) 14 SCC 800 ], while dealing with the identical issue in respect of condition to furnish the bank guarantee to release the seized vehicle, issued directions that the vehicle be released without insisting for the condition regarding bank guarantee. The judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court, delivered in case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 799], has also been referred wherein the condition to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 12 lac to release the vehicle was held to be onerous and unjustified and was quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. 7. Having considered rival contentions of learned counsel for both parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that the Revisional Court has not assigned any justified reasons to impose the additional and special condition to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 6 lac, apart from submitting 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' by the petitioner for the same worth to release the vehicle to the petitioner. 6 lac, apart from submitting 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' by the petitioner for the same worth to release the vehicle to the petitioner. It is clear that vehicle has been ordered to be released by the Revisional Court only on an interim custody to the petitioner during the course of trial that too after putting the condition to furnish the 'Supurdginama' and 'Jamanatnama' to Rs. 6 lac; the petitioner shall not transfer/alienate the vehicle, the petitioner shall surrender the vehicle as and when warranted by the Court, in the light of such terms and conditions, imposition of furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 6 lac in facts and circumstances of the present case, seems to be onerous and unjustified condition. Thus, following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of A.A.Ali (supra) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court delivered in case of Ramesh Kumar (Supra), this Court deems it just and proper to set aside the condition to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 6 lac to release the vehicle to the petitioner as imposed in the order dated 25.05.2023. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed, the condition imposed in the order dated 25.05.2023 to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 6 lac is set aside. The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 is modified to this extent, however other conditions as indicated therein shall remain in force. 9. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.