IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2756 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.2621/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- P.A.RAZZAK, S/O.MOHAMMED SALIM, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDIDNG AT PARIYARAM HOUSE, PANATHUR, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHAMMED.P.A, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS, PARIYARAM HOUSE, PANATHUR, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANHANGAD. (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2756 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner – P.A. Razak, who has preferred this petition through his Power-of-Attorney holder, his brother. That brother is the 1st accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.308 IPC. The alleged incident took place on 20/1/06. A group of persons had assaulted the victim under the cover of darkness in the night at his house. A crime was registered. No clue was obtained and it was initially closed as undetected. Later, further investigation was ordered. Some clues have now been obtained and investigation is in progress. The petitioner's brother was arrested on 19/5/08. 2. The crux of the allegations raised against the brother of the petitioner is that he had hired goondas to implement his Crl.M.C. No. 2756 of 2008 -: 2 :- scheme to cause injuries to the de facto complainant. On 19/5/08, when the petitioner's brother was arrested, he was allegedly travelling in a vehicle – an Innova car. That car belongs to the petitioner – P.A. Razak. He applied for release of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate through his brother. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order passed on 20/6/08 rejected the application. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was registered as a new vehicle long after the incident that took place on 20/1/06. In any view of the matter, the vehicle has nothing to do with the crime that was allegedly committed on 20/1/06. It is a highhanded action on the part of the Investigating Officer who seized the vehicle without any valid justification. At any rate, the learned Magistrate must have directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that there may be a direction to release the vehicle to the petitioner. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions and file a statement, if any, to support the action taken. A statement has been filed before this Court, it is submitted. The same is not available in the file. I have been Crl.M.C. No. 2756 of 2008 -: 3 :- taken through a copy of the statement filed. The same has been perused by me. 5. I am satisfied that the vehicle is not, in any way, connected with the crime. There is an allegation that at the time of arrest, the petitioner's brother – the 1st accused was available in the car. That is the only connection between the car and the crime in question. Of course, in the statement filed, there is a valiant attempt to show that the vehicle was used by the accused to move around and to threaten the witnesses. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no justification in the continued retention of the vehicle in the court's custody. I must alertly remind myself of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638). In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the vehicle deserves to be released to the petitioner – P.A. Razak, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) The vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall produce the Registration Certificate Crl.M.C. No. 2756 of 2008 -: 4 :- of the vehicle to show that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. (ii) He shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle to be assessed provisionally by the learned Magistrate along with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (iii) The bond shall be executed by the petitioner – Sri. P.A. Razak or his brother, his Power-of-Attorney holder. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/