IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4682 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.7301/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANJAY KUMAR S/O.SANKARANEZHUTHACHAN MANGATTUNJALIL HOUSE, PAINKULAM.P.O BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4682 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December 2008 O R D E R Petitioner's vehicle - allegedly a tempo van bearing No.KL- 08-H/5486 was allegedly involved in an offence under 'The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act'. The vehicle was seized. A crime was registered. Seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. An application was filed for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, taking note of the fact that the vehicle was involved in two similar crimes earlier, one in 2006 and the other in 2008, proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle will be exposed to sun and rain unnecessarily and subjected to avoidable damage and deterioration. Imbibing the concerns in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089], there may be a direction to release the vehicle of the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions. At appropriate later stages before appropriate authorities the petitioner shall be able to substantiate his contention that the vehicle is not Crl.M.C.No.4682/08 2 involved in the commission of the offence at all, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He points out that the vehicle has been involved in two similar crimes earlier. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, states that the State has no objection against release of the vehicle subject to appropriate terms and conditions. Past history of identical violations may be borne in mind and appropriate safeguards may be insisted, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the vehicle can now be directed to be released to the petitioner subject of course to appropriate and strict conditions considering the background of the crime. 4. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the vehicle - KL-08/H-5486 shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions. i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents to show that he is the person entitled to possession of the vehicle. Crl.M.C.No.4682/08 3 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, in the bond to be executed by him, undertake that the vehicle shall not be used or permitted to 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. He shall further undertake that he shall produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate or before the District Collector if a final order for confiscation is passed under the provisions of the Act. iv) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) as security before the court below. 5. If the above conditions are satisfied, the learned Magistrate shall issue a release order and thereupon the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner in whosesoever custody it may be. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr