IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4161 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.6401/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- IBRAHIM, S/O. KUNHAYU, ULIYATH HOUSE, VETTOM, PALLIPURAM, TIRUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STTION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSEUCOTR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police on the allegation that it was used for commission of the offence punishable under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The vehicle was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. That application was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the vehicle was earlier involved in another crime. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The vehicle was not used for the commission of any offence. Given opportunity he shall substantiate the contention before the confiscating authority or the investigating authority. At the moment there is no justification in insisting that the vehicle must be exposed to sun and rain in the custody of court/officials. In these circumstances Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008 2 subject to appropriate conditions the vehicle may be directed to be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who opposes the application, but concedes that State has no objection in the vehicle being released to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions as is usually imposed in the case of a vehicle which is allegedly used again for the commission of the offence after it is initially released. I am satisfied that the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions. In coming to this conclusion the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) do weigh with me. Of course, appropriate conditions can be imposed. 4. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case that the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate safeguards. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008 3 c) The vehicle in question - KL 11/B 4129, Mini lorry - shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions. i) The petitioner shall produce all documents before the learned Magistrate to show that he is the person entitled to possession of the vehicle. ii) He shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle to be determined by the learned Magistrate in his assessment with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. iii) In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, he shall undertake that the vehicle shall not be used by any one for the commission of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act while it is in his possession as per this order. iv) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.50,000/- before the learned Magistrate, as condition for release of the vehicle. (R. BASANT) Crl.M.C.No. 4161 of 2008 4 Judge tm