IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 616 of 2007()
1. K.P.JINOY, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. PAUL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/03/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.616 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle. According to him,
he had purchased the vehicle bona fide for consideration. The
police have now seized the vehicle. Police suspects that the
vehicle is a stolen vehicle and there has been tampering with the
engine number and chasis number of the vehicle. The vehicle
was seized in the course of investigation. The police have no
case so far that the petitioner has any contumacious role in the
commission of the offence. The petitioner, in these
circumstances, applied for release of the vehicle to him. There is
no other claimant for the vehicle. The learned Magistrate
accepted the request for release of the vehicle, subject to
conditions. The petitioner complains about one condition
imposed, that is condition No.3, which I extract below:
“The petitioner shall produce the bank
guarantee for the bond amount or to produce the title
deeds of the immovable property in originals of the
sureties as security”.
Crl.M.C.No.616/07 2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Magistrate had already imposed condition No.1 that the
petitioner must execute a bond for Rs.7,00,000/- with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum. In these circumstances, it is
unnecessary to insist on condition No.3. Because of the onerous
nature of condition No.3, the petitioner is unable to claim back
the vehicle. It is, in these circumstances prayed that the said
condition may be deleted. The petitioner shall produce solvent
sureties. The requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned
Magistrate that the sureties are solvent shall be induced by
production of appropriate documents. A rigid insistence on
production of bank guarantee or title deeds may not be made.
This, in short, is the request made by the counsel.
3. I must take note of the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089]. The vehicle has
not been taken release from the custody of the court. There is no
other claimant also. In these circumstances, it is very essential
that the property is preserved and protected. I am, in these
circumstances, satisfied that insistence on bank guarantee need
not be made. The rigid insistence on production of originals of
Crl.M.C.No.616/07 3
the title deeds of the sureties can also be dispensed with. It need
only be directed that the learned Magistrate must carefully
evaluate the sufficiency and acceptability of the sureties.
4. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
allowed in part. Condition No.3 is deleted. But it is directed that
the learned Magistrate must carefully evaluate the acceptability
of the sureties which they have accepted.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.616/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.616/07 5
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006
