IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4053 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/09/2008 IN IN OR 31 /2008 IN CRMP.8641/2008 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.B.BAIJU, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KALAKOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, MALAYINCHI VILLAGE UDUMPANOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4053 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner's vehicle is seized on the allegation that it is involved in the commission of an offence under the Kerala Forest Act. The seizure of the vehicle was reported to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The prayer for release of the vehicle has been rejected by the impugned order. The seizure was effected on 29/7/08. Proceedings under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act is initiated and a show cause notice has been issued, it is submitted. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the proceedings under Sec.61A are pending. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the vehicle has been exposed to sun and rain and faces the risk of deterioration and destruction in the custody of the officials. Crl.M.C. No. 4053 of 2008 -: 2 :- Whether under Sec.451 or Sec.457 Cr.P.C. or under Art.226 of the Constitution the vehicle may be directed to be released to the petitioner subject to appropriate terms and conditions, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application; but prays that appropriate conditions may be imposed to safeguard the interests of the State. The learned Public Prosecutor specifically insist that adequate bank guarantee may be insisted. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I am satisfied that the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner pending completion of all proceedings initiated against him. In coming to this conclusion, the concerns to which the Supreme Court addressed itself to in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) do weigh with me. Appropriate conditions can, of course, be imposed as requested by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) The impugned order is set aside. (c) The vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10F/9618 shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and Crl.M.C. No. 4053 of 2008 -: 3 :- conditions. (i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all the documents to show that he is the owner entitled to possession of the vehicle. (ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle and shall produce a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (iii) In the bond to be executed by the petitioner, the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate or the authority under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act if and after a direction is issued after completion of the proceedings and passing of the order under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act. (iv) If the above conditions are satisfied by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall issue an order of release and thereupon the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner in whosesoever the custody of the vehicle be. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4053 of 2008 -: 4 :-