IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4161 of 2008()
1. IBRAHIM, S/O. KUNHAYU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/11/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the police on the
allegation that it was used for commission of the offence
punishable under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The vehicle was produced
before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release
of the vehicle. That application was rejected by the impugned
order on the ground that the vehicle was earlier involved in
another crime.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. The vehicle was not used for the
commission of any offence. Given opportunity he shall
substantiate the contention before the confiscating authority or
the investigating authority. At the moment there is no
justification in insisting that the vehicle must be exposed to sun
and rain in the custody of court/officials. In these circumstances
Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008
2
subject to appropriate conditions the vehicle may be directed to be
released to the petitioner, it is prayed.
3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who opposes the
application, but concedes that State has no objection in the vehicle
being released to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions as is
usually imposed in the case of a vehicle which is allegedly used again
for the commission of the offence after it is initially released. I am
satisfied that the vehicle can be directed to be released to the
petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions. In coming
to this conclusion the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court
in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC
638) do weigh with me. Of course, appropriate conditions can be
imposed.
4. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case that
the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to
appropriate safeguards.
5. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
b) The impugned order is set aside.
Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008
3
c) The vehicle in question – KL 11/B 4129, Mini lorry – shall be
released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions.
i) The petitioner shall produce all documents before the learned
Magistrate to show that he is the person 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 in his
assessment with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
iii) In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, he shall
undertake that the vehicle shall not be used by any one for the
commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act while it is in his possession
as per this order.
iv) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.50,000/-
before the learned Magistrate, as condition for release of the vehicle.
(R. BASANT)
Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008
4
Judge
tm