Basheer Hussain vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2774 of 2008()


1. BASHEER HUSSAIN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :28/07/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.2774 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
               Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008

                                   ORDER

Petitioner is the owner of a costly tourist taxi car. There is

an allegation that the petitioner’s driver along with some other

accused were involved in a crime of theft of sandal wood –

removal of the same. It is alleged that the petitioner’s car was

used for such an illicit and culpable activity. The car was seized

by the police allegedly on surrender by the petitioner. It was

produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied

for release of the vehicle to his custody. The learned Magistrate

dismissed the prayer. The petitioner preferred a revision petition.

By the impugned order passed in the revision petition, the learned

Sessions Judge directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner,

but subject to conditions. Inter alia a condition was imposed that

“the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10

lakhs”. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said

condition obliging him to produce the bank guarantee.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the relevant

Crl.M.C. No.2774 of 2008 2

facts before imposing the onerous condition. It is submitted that

in any view of the matter, it is not necessary to insist on such a

condition as there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the

vehicle and there is no allegation even that the petitioner is in any

way involved in the commission of the crime.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this

Crl.M.C. He only submits that appropriate conditions may be

imposed. I am persuaded to agree that there is merit in the

objections raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner,

the value of the vehicle is not Rs.10 lakhs and will be less than

Rs.8 lakhs accepting any standards. He further submits that the

insistence on production of the bank guarantee is totally

unjustified.

4. I agree on both accounts. I am satisfied that

appropriate modified directions can be issued in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

5. In the result:

i) This Crl.M.C is allowed in part;

ii) The said condition (c) that the petitioner must produce

bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs is set aside;

Crl.M.C. No.2774 of 2008 3

iii) In supersession of the said condition it is directed that

the petitioner need only execute a bond for the value of the

vehicle to be ascertained by the learned Magistrate with one

solvent surety for the said sum to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate.

iv) All other conditions shall continue to remain in force.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-