Finding of the Court:
Point of Law: Seizer of Vehicle – Interim custody - Mere fact that the accused had absconded cannot be a reason for rejecting the petition filed by the owner of the vehicle.

ORDER :

The challenge in this Criminal M.C. is against Annexure-A order, by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of his vehicle, Maheendra Pick-up Jeep bearing registration number KL-10-AK-9396 was rejected by the jurisdictional court.

2. The vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.327/2020 registered at the Karuvarakundu Police Station alleging commission of offences under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 and Section 379 of I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only reason for rejection of the petition is the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused had absconded after committing the crime. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and is not an accused. Moreover, the alleged commission of the crime was on 16.08.2020. Therefore, the mere fact that the accused had absconded cannot be a reason for rejecting the petition filed by the owner of the vehicle.

3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

I find substance in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, Annexure-A order is set aside and the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for interim custody and to pass appropriate orders thereon without further delay. In the event of the prayer for interim release being allowed, the court shall impose appropriate conditions as mandated in Shan v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 413 (F.B.)]

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of accordingly.