IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3004 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.327/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI CRIME NO.611 OF 2007 OF TANUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------ REJI PAUL, S/O.P.K.PAUL, PADANILATHU HOUSE, CHATHAN THARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TANUR THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner's vehicle was allegedly used for the commission of a crime under Section 308 I.P.C. The accused persons allegedly hit the victim with the running vehicle and later he was stabbed with a broken bottle. The vehicle was released to the petitioner. There is no contention that the vehicle does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner was not initially arrayed as an accused also. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle to him. The vehicle was ordered to be released to him on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.1.5 lakhs with two solvent sureties. There was a further direction to “produce solvency certificate or bank guarantee or cash security”. The petitioner is aggrieved by the insistence on production of solvency certificate, bank guarantee or cash security. The petitioner shall produce two solvent sureties. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied about their solvency and adequacy, unnecessary ritualistic insistence on Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2008 2 production of solvency certificate, bank guarantee or cash security, may not be insisted, it is prayed. 2. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the prayer of the petitioner. I take note of the circumstances that there is no dispute regarding the ownership/possession of the vehicle and the only assertion is that the vehicle was used to knock down the victim. 3. I am, in these circumstances satisfied, notwithstanding the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor, that it is not necessary to insist on production of solvency certificate, bank guarantee or cash security by the sureties. It shall be sufficient if the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.1.5 lakhs with solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-