IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3448 of 2009() ------------------------- CMP.5152/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.101 OF 2009 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------- K.AZEEZ,S/O. OF USMAN, MANATHRAVIL HOUSE, KINISSERY, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF M.USMAN, S/O.USSAIN, MATTUMMAL HOUSE, HORNOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- STAET OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3448 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have one of the conditions imposed by the Magistrate, while releasing the vehicle of the petitioner, lifted. 2. Petitioner claims to the registered owner of a Maruti van bearing registration No.KL-7-AU 5636. It is alleged that the said vehicle involved in Crime No.101 of 2009 of Nadakkavu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The vehicle was taken into custody. The allegation was that on 15.2.2009, certain persons traveling in the van attacked the Sub Inspector of Police an obstructed him from doing his duty. The vehicle was seized on 4.6.2009. Petitioner filed a petition seeking interim custody of the vehicle. It is pointed out by him that if the vehicle is kept in the court Crl.M.C. 3448/2009. 2 premises or in the police station, it is open to vagaries of nature and cause disuse of the vehicle. Therefore, he prayed that the vehicle may be released to him. 3. The learned Magistrate by Annexure I order directed release of the vehicle on three conditions. Condition No.2 reads as follows: “2. He shall also produce bank guarantee for Rs.2Lakhs as a security for the release of the vehicle.” 4. Petitioner would point out that the said condition is an onerous one and it has the effect of denying release of the vehicle to him. It is also pointed out that there is no justification for imposing an onerous condition. If he is the registered owner, he is entitled to seek interim custody of the vehicle. 5. It is seen that there is some substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. The court below is not justified in imposing condition No.2 stated above. There is Crl.M.C. 3448/2009. 3 no reason as to why the above condition should not be deleted. As rightly contended, it is too onerous a condition, which would amount to denying release of the vehicle. Considering various aspects, this petition is allowed and the condition No.2 shall stand deleted. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.