IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1531 of 2011() --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.43/2011 OF KUMALY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ VINOD, S/O.GOPI, SHAJI BHAVAN, PUTHUVAL BHAGOM, THENGAKKAL KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, CBCID, HHWII KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1531 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 O R D E R Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents. 2. Challenge is to Annexure-2, order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Idukki on 11.05.2011 rejecting the request of petitioner made under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the vehicle on interim custody to him, seized from the site of the infamous, 'Pullumedu tragedy'. As seen from Annexure-2, order the RDO/SDM sought the views of the Investigating Officer on the application of petitioner on various dates and since there was no reply, the application of petitioner was rejected. I am unable to understand why, because the Investigating Officer did not respond to the direction of the RDO/SDM the request of petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle should be rejected if otherwise it is tenable. Hence Annexure-2, order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is ready to abide any condition if interim custody is granted to him. That is a matter which petitioner has to urge before the RDO/SDM. CRL.M.C. No.1531 of 2011 -: 2 :- Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-2, order is set aside. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Idukki is directed to consider the request of petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle afresh if necessary after getting the views of the Investigating Officer also and pass appropriate orders on merit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as expeditiously as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv