IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3181 of 2008()
1. DINESH, SARADA BHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. RAJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3181 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered initially
under Section 354 I.P.C and later altered to Section 376 r/w 511
I.P.C. The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by the
police in the course of that investigation. The nexus between the
vehicle and the crime is that the petitioner had allegedly used
the vehicle to carry the victim. The vehicle was seized by the
police. The same was produced before the learned Magistrate.
The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, directed release
of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions. The
petitioner claims to be aggrieved by conditions 2 and 4.
2. The said two conditions oblige the petitioner to
produce necessary documents to prove ownership of the vehicle.
The conditions also oblige the sureties to produce their title
deeds.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all
submits that all the documents relating to ownership were in the
vehicle at the time when it was seized by the police. The learned
Crl.M.C. No.3181 of 2008 2
Public Prosecutor concedes that such documents were seized
and were available in the vehicle. The investigator is in
possession of those documents. The Investigating Officer shall
forthwith produce such documents before the learned Magistrate
to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is the person
entitled to possession of the vehicle.
4. The next grievance is that the sureties have been
directed to produce their title deeds. In this case where there is
no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, it is unnecessary
to impose such an onerous condition, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce sureties,
who shall, as usual, produce the tax receipts, it is submitted.
5. The said prayer is also not opposed by the learned
Public Prosecutor and I am satisfied, in these circumstances,
that this Crl.M.C can be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the insistence on a bond for Rs.3 lakhs is unjustified.
Admittedly the vehicle is a Maruti Omni Van of 1995 made. It is
agreed after the discussions at the Bar that a bond for Rs.1 lakh
alone need be insisted.
Crl.M.C. No.3181 of 2008 3
7. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
b) The conditions imposed are modified as follows:
i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1 lakh only
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The ownership documents which are admittedly
available with the police shall forthwith be produced before the
learned Magistrate by the Investigating Officer and the condition
that the petitioner must produce such documents is dispensed
with;
iii) The condition that the sureties must produce their
title deeds is set aside.
Sd/-
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
/true copy/
P.A to Judge