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. 4919 of 2008() ------------------------- C.M.P.NO.8594/2008 J.F.C.M-I, KODUNGALLUR PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PATHIRIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADANNA, METHALA. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): STAET -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY' THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER 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.4919 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January 2009 O R D E R Petitioner's vehicle was 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. The learned Magistrate refused to release the vehicle to the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle was involved in earlier identical offences. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false and incorrect. The petitioner shall substantiate his contentions at the appropriate stage. The vehicle may not be left to suffer damage and deterioration. The vehicle may be ordered to be released to the petitioner subject to any appropriate terms and conditions, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application; but submits that if this court were inclined to Crl.M.C.No.4919/08 2 release the vehicle to the petitioner, appropriate safeguards may be insisted. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the vehicle is involved in four identical instances earlier. 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-18B/4699 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.4919/08 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.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand 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.4919/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4919/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008