IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4768 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.8574/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED ANEESH, S/O.ALI, ERYAD, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.1075/2008 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4768 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which is allegedly involved in the commission of an offence under 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act'. The vehicle was seized. Crime was registered. Seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations raised are incorrect and that at any rate It is not necessary to insist that the vehicle must be retained in custody. Subject to any appropriate terms and conditions, the vehicle may be released to the petitioner. The vehicle may not be left to suffer damage and deterioration in the custody of the court by exposure to sun and rain. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that on three earlier occasions, the vehicle was seized and was released to the petitioner. As the vehicle was involved in the commission of Crl.M.C.No.4768/08 2 similar offences earlier on three occasions, the State wants to oppose the application. If the court were inclined to release the vehicle, sufficient deposit of cash security may be insisted, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for release of the vehicle. Subject to appropriate conditions, the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. In coming to this conclusion, I take note of the concerns to which the Supreme Court addressed itself in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089]. 5. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. 6. It is directed that the vehicle No.KL-3D 1589 shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) He shall produce all documents before the learned Magistrate to show that he is the owner 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 Crl.M.C.No.4768/08 3 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. iii) The petitioner, in such bond, shall undertake that the vehicle, while in his custody on the strength of this order, shall not be used or permitted to be used for commission of any offence punishable under 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act' . iv) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate or the authorities under 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act' if and after a final order of confiscation is passed or as and when directed. v) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) before the learned Magistrate as security. 7. If the above conditions are satisfied, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4768/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4768/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008