High Court Kerala High Court

P V Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
P V Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3977 of 2008()


1. P V MATHEW, CHAIRMAN, NEDUMKANDOM
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :29/10/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Crl.M.C.No. 3977 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle, which was

allegedly used for the accused persons who face allegation of

kidnapping etc. The vehicle was allegedly used to transport the

person kidnapped. According to the petitioner he was not the

owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. He is only a

subsequent purchaser of the vehicle from one of the accused.

The vehicle was directed to be released subject to conditions.

The petitioner is aggrieved by conditions 2, 3 and 5 imposed by

the learned Magistrate as per the impugned order. As per

condition No.2 the sureties were directed to furnish possession

certificate with the market price fixed by the Government from a

competent authority. He was further directed to produce the

vehicle before the Investigating Officer on every second

Saturday until the evidence is over. He was further directed to

furnish a cash security of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the bond for

Rs. 5 lakhs, which was directed to be executed.

Crl.M.C.No. 3977 of 2008
2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

conditions are unnecessarily onerous and cumbersome. Considering

the nature of the offence and the nature of the alleged nexus between

the vehicle and the petitioner, it is not at all necessary to insist on such

onerous conditions. Conditions 2, 3 and 5 may in these circumstances

be deleted, submits the counsel.

3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who does not

oppose the application. I am satisfied that the other conditions

imposed shall adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution. I

am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer for deletion of

conditions 2, 3 and 5 can be allowed.

4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. The conditions 2, 3 and 5 shall

stand deleted. All other conditions shall remain.

5. Hand over the order.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm