IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 32 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------- (C.M.P.NO.4797/2008 OF J.F.C.M. COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM, CRIME NO.332/2008 OF MAVOOR POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- MEHAROOF ALI, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, KOKKANCHERY PARAMBA,CHERUPA,MAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 32 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 ORDER The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was allegedly involved in the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short `the Act'). Crime has been registered. Seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. By the impugned order, his prayer for release of the vehicle was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was earlier involved in the commission of an identical crime. 2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent. Given an opportunity he shall substantiate that his vehicle was not involved in the commission of any offence at any point of time. But until he is able to avail of such an opportunity, his vehicle Crl.M.C. No. 32 of 2009 -: 2 :- may not be compelled to remain exposed to sun and rain and suffer damage and deterioration. Subject to any appropriate conditions, the vehicle may be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The application is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed considering the nature of the alleged offence and the antecedents. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. Concerns to which the Supreme Court addressed itself in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) do weigh with me to come to the conclusion that the vehicle can be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle. (ii) The learned Magistrate shall assess the value of the Crl.M.C. No. 32 of 2009 -: 3 :- vehicle. (iii) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash before the learned Magistrate and shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle along with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (iv) In such bond to be executed by the petitioner, he shall undertake that the vehicle while in his custody shall not be used or permitted to be used for the commission of any offence punishable under the Act. (v) In the bond the petitioner shall further undertake that the vehicle shall be produced by him as and when directed by the court or if so directed by the authorities under the Act after passing of a final order for confiscation – if such order is passed at all. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 32 of 2009 -: 4 :-