Sreenivasan vs The State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1817 of 2008()


1. SREENIVASAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :23/05/2008

 O R D E R
                              R. BASANT, J.
                 -----------------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008
                 -----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008

                                 O R D E R

Petitioner’s vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident,

when it was driven by the driver of the vehicle. A crime has been

registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections

279, 337 and 304 IPC. There is a further allegation that the

vehicle, at the time when it met with the accident, was being

involved in illicit transportation of sand. Allegations have also

been received under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21(1) of

Minor and Mineral (development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The

petitioner applied for release of the vehicle, pending investigation.

The prayer for release was opposed. The learned Magistrate by

the impugned order rejected the prayer on the ground that the

investigation is not complete and the driver of the vehicle had not

been arrested.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

investigation has now made much high way. The driver of the

vehicle has already been granted anticipatory bail and he has

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008
2

been released from custody after arrest. In these circumstances,

counsel prays that there is absolutely no justification in keeping

the vehicle under custody any longer. The vehicle is exposed to

sun and rain causing damage to it. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that subject to any appropriate conditions, the

vehicle may now be ordered to be released to the petitioner.

3. Learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application but,

prays that appropriate conditions may be imposed. I am satisfied

in considering all the relevant circumstances that this petition can

now be allowed and the vehicle can be directed to be released to

the petitioner.

This petition is accordingly allowed and the vehicle in

question shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms

and directions:

1. He shall produce all documents to show

that he is the owner of the vehicle and is entitled for

the possession of the vehicle, before the learned

Magistrate.

2. He shall execute a bond for an amount

equal to the value of the vehicle with two solvent

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008
3

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of

the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate

shall fix the appropriate value of the vehicle.

3. In the bond the petitioner shall undertake

to produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate

or any other authority as may be directed by the

learned Magistrate from time to time.

R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008
4

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008
5