IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2774 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.42/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BASHEER HUSSAIN, S/O. KUTTY HASSAN, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, ATHIKAPARAMBIL DESOM, CHERUTHURUTHY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, VETTILAPPARA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2774 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the owner of a costly tourist taxi car. There is an allegation that the petitioner's driver along with some other accused were involved in a crime of theft of sandal wood - removal of the same. It is alleged that the petitioner's car was used for such an illicit and culpable activity. The car was seized by the police allegedly on surrender by the petitioner. It was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle to his custody. The learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer. The petitioner preferred a revision petition. By the impugned order passed in the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner, but subject to conditions. Inter alia a condition was imposed that “the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs”. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said condition obliging him to produce the bank guarantee. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the relevant Crl.M.C. No.2774 of 2008 2 facts before imposing the onerous condition. It is submitted that in any view of the matter, it is not necessary to insist on such a condition as there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle and there is no allegation even that the petitioner is in any way involved in the commission of the crime. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this Crl.M.C. He only submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed. I am persuaded to agree that there is merit in the objections raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the value of the vehicle is not Rs.10 lakhs and will be less than Rs.8 lakhs accepting any standards. He further submits that the insistence on production of the bank guarantee is totally unjustified. 4. I agree on both accounts. I am satisfied that appropriate modified directions can be issued in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed in part; ii) The said condition (c) that the petitioner must produce bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs is set aside; Crl.M.C. No.2774 of 2008 3 iii) In supersession of the said condition it is directed that the petitioner need only execute a bond for the value of the vehicle to be ascertained by the learned Magistrate with one solvent surety for the said sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. iv) All other conditions shall continue to remain in force. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-