IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4919 of 2008()
1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY'
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/01/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4919 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner’s vehicle was allegedly involved in the
commission of an offence under ‘The Kerala Protection of River
Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act’. The vehicle was
seized. Crime was registered. Seizure was reported to the
learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the
vehicle. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order.
The learned Magistrate refused to release the vehicle to the
petitioner on the ground that the vehicle was involved in earlier
identical offences.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations are totally false and incorrect. The petitioner
shall substantiate his contentions at the appropriate stage. The
vehicle may not be left to suffer damage and deterioration. The
vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner subject to
any appropriate terms and conditions, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application; but submits that if this court were inclined to
Crl.M.C.No.4919/08 2
release the vehicle to the petitioner, appropriate safeguards may
be insisted. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
vehicle is involved in four identical instances earlier.
4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I
find merit in the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner
for release of the vehicle. Subject to appropriate conditions, the
vehicle can be released to the petitioner. In coming to this
conclusion, I take note of the concerns to which the Supreme
Court addressed itself in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089].
5. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) The impugned order is set aside.
6. It is directed that the vehicle No.KL-18B/4699 shall be
released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
i) He shall produce all documents before the learned
Magistrate to show that he is the owner entitled to possession of
the vehicle.
ii) He shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the
value of the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C.No.4919/08 3
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the learned Magistrate.
iii) The petitioner, in such bond, shall undertake that the
vehicle, while in his custody on the strength of this order, shall
not be used or permitted to be used for commission of any
offence punishable under ‘The Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act’ .
iv) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake to
produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate or the
authorities under ‘The Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act’ if and after a final order of
confiscation is passed or as and when directed.
v) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of
Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only)
before the learned Magistrate as security.
7. If the above conditions are satisfied, the vehicle shall
be released to the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.4919/08 4
Crl.M.C.No.4919/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008