IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3925 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.3996/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, CHILAMBIL, AZHOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJATH ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3925 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner's vehicle was allegedly involved in the commission of an offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sank Act. The vehicle was seized. Application was filed before the learned Magistrate for release of the vehicle. That application was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that earlier the vehicle was so released to the petitioner and the same has been used again for commission of an identical offence. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the entire allegations, there is no justification in insisting that the vehicle should suffer damage and deterioration in the custody of the officials. Subject to any appropriate conditions, the petitioner may be granted release of the vehicle. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who repeats the objection that the vehicle has been involved in an earlier offence and the same was released to the petitioner. In as much Crl.M.C.No. 3925 of 2008 2 as the vehicle has been used for repeating the identical offence, appropriate safeguards may be insisted and cash security may be demanded, submits the Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, 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. The sad scenario of the vehicles being exposed to sun and rain in the custody of the courts have to be avoided. Of course, appropriate conditions can be imposed. 5. 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. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions. Crl.M.C.No. 3925 of 2008 3 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 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. 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) Judge tm