High Court Kerala High Court

Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 1 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 1 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3222 of 2008()


1. DINESH KUMAR, ADIMURIYIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AJITH MURALI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :01/09/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Crl.M.C.No. 3222 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner’s vehicle, which is allegedly involved in an

offence punishable under the Kerala Protection of River Banks

and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, was seized by the police

and the petitioner applied for release. The learned Magistrate

rejected the same on the ground that the same vehicle was earlier

involved in an identical crime and was released to the petitioner,

subject to conditions. A crime in respect of the earlier incident

was registered and that case is pending even now. It is not safe

to release the vehicle to the petitioner, who had taken release of

the vehicle on the earlier occasion subject to conditions, it was

held. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, dismissed

the application.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

neither occasion the offence has been committed, though a

prosecution in respect of the earlier instance is pending. He is

Crl.M.C.No. 3222 of 2008
2

not an accused in respect of either incident and in these circumstances

the vehicle may be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to

appropriate conditions. The learned counsel further submits that the

vehicle, which was taken into custody on 18.5.2008, is exposed to sun

and rain and the same is likely to suffer damage and deterioration. In

these circumstances it is prayed that subject to any appropriate

condition, which this court feels proper, the vehicle may be directed to

be released to the petitioner.

3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that

in the light of the dictum in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of

Gujarat (SC 2003 (2) KLT 1089) the vehicle can be directed to be

released to the petitioner subject to appropriate and strict conditions.

Such conditions should be imposed which shall deter the petitioner

from making use of the vehicle for repetition of the commission of the

offence.

4. In the result:

a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

b) The impugned order is set aside.

Crl.M.C.No. 3222 of 2008
3

c) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following

terms and conditions:

i) He shall execute a bond for the amount equal to the value of

the vehicle as may be determined by the learned Magistrate.

ii) He shall produce bank guarantee for such amount as security

for the bond executed.

iii) In the bond he shall undertake that the vehicle shall not be

used for commission of any crime under the Kerala Protection of

River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act while it is in his

custody.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm