The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that imposing a bank guarantee of Rs.20 lakh for the release of a seized vehicle in a forest and mining offence case is an arbitrary and disproportionate condition, violating established principles of proportionality and fair procedure. This ruling reinforces judicial restraint in imposing financial burdens unrelated to the nature of the offence or risk of flight.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nijjar S/o Majid Mev, is the registered owner of Truck Registration No. RJ-14-GK-0288, which was seized by authorities under FIR No.12/2026, Police Station Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh. The FIR was registered for alleged offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, relating to illegal transportation of forest produce. The petitioner claimed no involvement in the commission of the offence and asserted sole ownership of the vehicle.
Key Facts
- The truck was seized on or about 10.04.2026 during transit in District Chittorgarh
- The petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, seeking release of the vehicle
- On 28.04.2026, the Sessions Judge allowed the application for release but imposed a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.20,00,000
- No third-party claim was made over the vehicle
- The vehicle remained in police custody since seizure, with risk of mechanical deterioration
- The petitioner is not accused of being the driver or direct offender; ownership alone was the basis for seizure
Procedural History
- 10.04.2026: Truck seized by Forest Department and Police under Sections 41 and 42 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953
- 15.04.2026: Petitioner filed application for release of vehicle before Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh
- 28.04.2026: Sessions Judge ordered release of vehicle subject to bank guarantee of Rs.20,00,000
- 05.06.2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3735/2026 filed under Section 528 of BNSS before Rajasthan High Court
- 24.06.2026: Hearing before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu (Vacation Judge)
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the condition requiring a bank guarantee of Rs.20,00,000 for release of the vehicle, and immediate release upon furnishing supurdginama and surety as originally directed by the trial court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may impose a bank guarantee of Rs.20 lakh for the release of a seized vehicle in a non-bailable offence under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, when no evidence suggests the vehicle is proceeds of crime or the owner is a flight risk, and when no statutory provision mandates such a condition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], where the Supreme Court held that imposing a bank guarantee as a condition for release of a seized vehicle is not only unnecessary but also oppressive, especially when the vehicle is not an instrument of crime and no claim exists by any third party. He also cited the coordinate bench decision in Hukma Ram v. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No.7322/2024, dated 03.02.2025), wherein this Court had quashed a similar condition of Rs.30 lakh bank guarantee, observing that such a demand is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the vehicle’s continued detention in police custody would lead to depreciation and irreparable loss.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the condition was imposed to ensure compliance with potential compounding fees and to deter future violations under the Forest Act. He contended that the amount was reasonable given the seriousness of the offence and the value of the seized timber. However, he did not cite any statutory provision authorizing such a condition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precedent set in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai, where the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a bank guarantee for release of a vehicle seized under forest or mining laws is not a legal requirement and amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court noted that the vehicle in question was not used as an instrument of crime, nor was there any allegation that the petitioner was the offender. The mere fact of ownership does not justify a financial burden disproportionate to the alleged offence.
"In view of the settled legal propositions and guided by the judicial pronouncement passed in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai (supra), and considering that the condition No.6 imposed by the court below regarding furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.30,00,000/-, is harsh and onerous, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement of furnishing bank guarantee thus, it is deemed just and appropriate to allow the instant Misc. Petition."
The Court observed that the present case was identical in facts and legal posture to Hukma Ram. The Sessions Judge had imposed a condition of Rs.20 lakh without any statutory basis or judicial reasoning. The Court emphasized that while compounding fees may be payable under the Rajasthan Forest Act, such dues must be recovered through proper channels and cannot be converted into a coercive condition for vehicle release. The Court further held that the requirement of supurdginama and surety, as originally directed by the trial court, was sufficient to ensure appearance and compliance.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the condition imposed in the order dated 28.04.2026 requiring a bank guarantee of Rs.20,00,000 for the release of Truck RJ-14-GK-0288. The vehicle shall be released upon furnishing supurdginama and surety as directed by the trial court. The Court further directed that if any compounding fees are pending with the concerned Department, the petitioner shall pay the same within 15 days of release, and only thereafter shall the vehicle be deemed fully released from any further encumbrance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bank Guarantees Cannot Be Imposed Arbitrarily
- Practitioners must challenge any court order imposing bank guarantees for vehicle release in forest, mining, or wildlife offences where no statutory provision exists
- The burden is on the State to show why a bank guarantee is necessary - mere seriousness of offence is insufficient
- Courts must apply the principle of proportionality: the condition must be directly linked to risk of non-appearance or destruction of evidence
Supurdginama and Surety Are Sufficient Safeguards
- The traditional conditions of supurdginama and surety remain the legally recognized standard for release of seized vehicles
- No additional financial burden can be imposed unless explicitly mandated by statute
- Any attempt to use bank guarantees as a revenue collection tool violates Article 14 and the doctrine of proportionality
Compounding Fees Must Be Recovered Separately
- Pending compounding fees under the Rajasthan Forest Act cannot be tied to vehicle release
- Recovery of such dues must follow due process: notice, opportunity to pay, and recovery proceedings if unpaid
- Courts must not conflate administrative dues with judicial conditions for release
