IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2932 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.2919/2008 of J.F.C.M-I, HOSDURG CRIME NO.16/06 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.ABDULLA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.USMAN, RESIDING KAKKOTTAKATHU PUTHIYAPURAYIL, NHATTUVAYAL, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: ------------- S.H.O, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2932 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which he purchased long prior to the date of the incident in this case. The incident occurred and the F.I.R was registered on 20.01.06. The allegations are raised, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. The case was initially closed after investigation as undetected. Later the Superintendent of Police ordered further investigation and the investigation has specifically achieved some success. The accused have been identified. Some of them have been arrested. Some of them have applied for anticipatory bail. The vehicle in question was seized from the possession of the petitioner long after the incident. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. It was initially rejected. The petitioner waited for some more time for the investigation to be over. He again moved an application. The same was also dismissed. The vehicle is now exposed to sun and rain. The seizure was effected on 22.05.08. According to the petitioner, it is absolutely erroneous and perverse to direct retention of the vehicle in custody. The Crl.M.C. No.2932 of 2008 2 petitioner is not an accused. There is no specific assertion that the former owner of the vehicle is also an accused person arrayed in the case. Investigation is almost complete. At any rate, there is no assertion that anything further specifically has got to be done in respect of the vehicle in connection with the investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays and notwithstanding the objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor on the sole ground that there is political background to the crime, I am not persuaded to agree that the vehicle deserves to be kept in the custody of the police or the court any longer. I must alertly imbibe the spirit of expedition mandated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638]. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. Though the learned Public Prosecutor insists that very strict conditions may be imposed, I am not persuaded to agree that any such conditions need be insisted in the facts and circumstances of the case. A direction to the petitioner to execute a bond for the value of the vehicle would, I am satisfied, eminently serve the interests of justice. Crl.M.C. No.2932 of 2008 3 3. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 13 A 5094 (Mahindra Jeep) shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) He shall produce all documents to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he is the owner in possession of the vehicle; ii) He shall execute a bond without any sureties, for the value of the vehicle to be provisionally assessed by the learned Magistrate, undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-