IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 146 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CMP.2202/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR. CRIME NO.709/2009 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ VIDHADHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PULLIKKAL HOUSE, KALLOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.G.HARIHARAN MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE/ACCUSED ----------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.CHUKKATH GOPALAN, VALAKKAVU, (VIA) MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 160 OF 2010 CRMC NO. 167 OF 2010 THE COURT ON 15/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- Cr. MC Nos.146, 160 & 167 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated 15th February 2010 Order In all these petitions, a common issue arises for consideration and so, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners' vehicles were seized by the Police in Crime Nos. 709/09 and 742/09 of Mannuthy Police Station. They moved the Court concerned for release of the vehicles. The petitioners submit that the vehicles were taken on hire by the third respondent. They also submit that they have not committed any act, which would constitute an offence. According to them, keeping the vehicles in custody will serve no purpose. On the above grounds, the petitioners prayed for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Magistrate, in all these cases, after being satisfied that the petitioners herein are the owners of the vehicles, directed release of the vehicles on execution of a bond and depositing cash security/ furnishing bank CR MC NOS.146,160 & 167/10 2 guarantee for the amount covered by the bond, subject to confiscation proceedings and other conditions. The petitioners are aggrieved by that part of the order, which directs them to deposit cash/furnish bank guarantee. They say that it is an onerous condition. 4. It is well settled law that whenever a vehicle is released in the proceedings, the Court is entitled to impose such conditions, which it deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. In this case, the Court below has thought it fit to impose a condition of bank guarantee in addition to the execution of bond. It is also observed that the vehicle will be made available if confiscation proceedings are initiated. It must be borne in mind that the vehicles were seized when they were being used to commit offences. The seizure of vehicles is intended to discourage such acts being done. Therefore, imposition of such conditions, as in the present case, is justified as it will provide as a deterrent to others. Therefore, there is no illegality in imposing the condition of bank guarantee. So, CR MC NOS.146,160 & 167/10 3 there is no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Court concerned. These petitions are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CR MC NOS.146,160 & 167/10 4