Joshy.Pj. vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4978 of 2008()


1. JOSHY.PJ., S/O.JOSEPH, 49 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :01/01/2009

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.4978 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009

                                  ORDER

The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was allegedly used

for the commission of an offence under the Immoral Traffic

Prevention Act. The petitioner is one of the accused persons.

He applied for release of his vehicle to him. It was directed to be

released, but subject to conditions.

2. The petitioner is not the registered owner, but he is

only an agreement owner who had purchased the vehicle from

the registered owner. It is submitted at the Bar that the

registered owner has already reported to the learned Magistrate

that he has no objection against release of the vehicle to the

petitioner herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition No.1

imposed by the learned Magistrate under the impugned order

which obliges the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.3 lakhs

with the registered owner as one of the sureties. According to

the petitioner, the registered owner, though he has no objection

against release of the vehicle to the petitioner, is not willing to

offer himself as a surety for the petitioner. This has resulted in

Crl.M.C. No.4978 of 2008 2

continuance of the vehicle in the custody of the court exposing

the same to damage and deterioration. It is, in these

circumstances, prayed that the said condition may now be

deleted.

3. If the registered owner files an affidavit expressing

his willingness to release the vehicle to the petitioner, I find no

reason why it should be insisted that such registered owner must

himself be willing to offer himself as surety for the petitioner. I

am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the said condition

imposed can be modified.

4. In the result:

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

ii) If the registered owner files an affidavit before the

learned Magistrate to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the

registered owner has no objection against release of the vehicle

to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate need not insist on the

registered owner figuring as a surety. The learned Magistrate

can accept any two solvent sureties offered by the petitioner to

the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-