IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3229 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.295/2008 OF CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- PRAMODH, S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, KALAMKUNNATH HOUSE, VARAVATTOOR, PALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF VEHILCE BEARING REGL.NO. KL-09-N 1806) BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHI, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3229 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September 2008 O R D E R The petitioner against whom there is an allegation that his vehicle was used for commission of offences under 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001' has come to this court aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for release of his vehicle in his favour. 2. The learned Magistrate rejected the application taking note of the circumstance that earlier in 2006, an identical allegation was raised in respect of the vehicle of the petitioner that it was used for commission of a similar offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that crime was committed long back and no criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused in that crime. The penalty amount was paid and the allegations were dropped on that earlier occasion against the accused in that crime. The petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the earlier incident. The vehicle in this case was seized on 24/7/2008. It is exposed to sun and rain. Crl.M.C.No.3229/08 2 It is suffering unnecessary damage and deterioration. Subject to any appropriate conditions, the vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the vehicle can be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions. I have taken note of all the submissions made by the rival contestants in the matter. I take note of the dictum in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089] which mandates that the courts must show anxiety to ensure that vehicles are not exposed to sun and rain to suffer damage and deterioration in the custody of the court. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed. 5. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) It is directed that the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions. Crl.M.C.No.3229/08 3 i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents 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 as may be determined by the learned Magistrate with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. iii) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as security before the court below. iv) The petitioner shall, in the bond to be executed by him, undertake that the vehicle shall not be used while it is in his possession for commission of any offence under 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 or the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3229/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3229/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008