IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3181 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.3724/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO.332/08 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ------------ DINESH, SARADA BHAVAN, THEKKEVILA P.O., MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS. -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM, THORUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATTANNOOR, KOLLAM (INVESTIGATING OFFICER). 3. RAJAN, ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3181 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered initially under Section 354 I.P.C and later altered to Section 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by the police in the course of that investigation. The nexus between the vehicle and the crime is that the petitioner had allegedly used the vehicle to carry the victim. The vehicle was seized by the police. The same was produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by conditions 2 and 4. 2. The said two conditions oblige the petitioner to produce necessary documents to prove ownership of the vehicle. The conditions also oblige the sureties to produce their title deeds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submits that all the documents relating to ownership were in the vehicle at the time when it was seized by the police. The learned Crl.M.C. No.3181 of 2008 2 Public Prosecutor concedes that such documents were seized and were available in the vehicle. The investigator is in possession of those documents. The Investigating Officer shall forthwith produce such documents before the learned Magistrate to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is the person entitled to possession of the vehicle. 4. The next grievance is that the sureties have been directed to produce their title deeds. In this case where there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, it is unnecessary to impose such an onerous condition, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce sureties, who shall, as usual, produce the tax receipts, it is submitted. 5. The said prayer is also not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this Crl.M.C can be allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the insistence on a bond for Rs.3 lakhs is unjustified. Admittedly the vehicle is a Maruti Omni Van of 1995 made. It is agreed after the discussions at the Bar that a bond for Rs.1 lakh alone need be insisted. Crl.M.C. No.3181 of 2008 3 7. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The conditions imposed are modified as follows: i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1 lakh only with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The ownership documents which are admittedly available with the police shall forthwith be produced before the learned Magistrate by the Investigating Officer and the condition that the petitioner must produce such documents is dispensed with; iii) The condition that the sureties must produce their title deeds is set aside. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge