IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2240 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.3859/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.44 OF 2008, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------ SATHEESH, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KULAKUTTIYIL ERAM MURI, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, 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 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2240 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 ORDER This application is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in a crime registered under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that contraband liquor was found and was seized from the residential premises of the petitioner where he stays along with others. There is a further allegation that the contraband article was brought to the scene of the crime earlier in an autorickshaw belonging to the petitioner. The vehicle has been seized. Seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The vehicle was not released to the petitioner on the short ground that proceedings under Section 67 B of the Kerala Abkari Act have been initiated. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. It is reported that report has been made to the authorities concerned for initiation of action under Section 67 B of Crl.M.C. No.2240 of 2008 2 the Kerala Abkari Act. Admittedly no further steps under Section 67 B have been taken so far. 4. Crime was registered on 11.01.08. The seizure was on 30.01.08. I must imbibe the concerns which prompted the Supreme Court to issue general directions in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638]. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that subject to appropriate conditions, the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall produce all documents to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle entitled for possession; ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle as ascertained by the learned Magistrate with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the Crl.M.C. No.2240 of 2008 3 satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must scrupulously ensure that sureties offered are sufficient and solvent; iii) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle shall be produced before the learned Magistrate as and when directed and also before the authorities under the Kerala Abkari Act after a valid final order to that effect is passed under Section 67 B of the Kerala Abkari Act. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently made a submission that there may be insistence on production of bank guarantee or cash deposit. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that such insistence be made in this case. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-