IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 267 of 2008() ------------------------ CMP.8216/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------ VINEESH, S/O.VINAYA CHANDRAN, TCW-1644, VIRAKUKADAYIL VEEDU, POTTAKKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.267 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the registered owner of a brand new Santro car bearing registration number KL01- AR-356, challenges Annexure C order dated 31.12.07 passed by the J.F.C.M-III, Neyattinkara in C.M.P.No.8216/2007 as per which the petitioner's application under Section 451 for interim custody of the car was rejected. 2. According to the petitioner, he is running a 'rent a car' business at Pottakuzhi in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had parted with his possession of the car in favour of a friend of his by name Pradeep who had, in turn, hired the car to the 1st accused who had used the car for the commission of the offence forming subject matter of Crime No.387 of 2007 of the Balaramapuram Police Station. Since the petitioner is not an accused in the above case and he was not a privy to the offence committed using the car in question, his contention is that the learned Magistrate should not have rejected his application for interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted Crl.M.C.No.267 of 2008 2 that the investigation thus far as conducted by the Police has not revealed the complicity of the petitioner directly or indirectly in the commission of the offence and that the petitioner is not suspected with regard to the offence committed using the car. If so, I see no reason why the petitioner should not be given interim custody of the car. Accordingly, the aforesaid Santro car shall be given on interim custody to the petitioner by the J.F.C.M-III, Neyyattinkara on the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M-III, Neyyatinkara and subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall keep the vehicle in the same condition in which it has been released to him. ii) The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle and its accessories wholly or in part to any person. iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before court as and when required by the Magistrate. It goes without saying that if the bumper of the car has been severed from the vehicle and has been produced as a separate item of thondy, the same shall also be released to the petitioner along with the car. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj