Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J.
Sreeraj, S/o.Ramankutty – Appellant
Versus
The Station House Officer - Respondent
Crl.MC.No.2931 of 2020(F)
Decided on : 21-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For the Respondent: SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
The court has the discretion to modify conditions for interim custody based on the circumstances, while still ensuring compliance with relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Interim Custody - Motor Vehicle - The court modified the condition for interim custody of a vehicle involved in a road accident, considering the value of the vehicle and the prevailing pandemic situation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was involved in a road accident resulting in fatal injuries to a pedestrian. The petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C, but the condition imposed required a deposit of Rs.1,72,000/- as security.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the value of the vehicle was disputed and the petitioner was unable to raise the required amount due to the pandemic situation. It acknowledged the relevance of the condition but considered the need for relaxation due to the circumstances.
Issues: Dispute over the value of the vehicle, imposition of stringent conditions, and the impact of the pandemic situation on compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court modified the condition for interim custody, taking into account the disputed value of the vehicle and the impact of the pandemic situation, while acknowledging the relevance of the original condition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the modification of the condition, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000/- as security and furnish a personal bond for the remaining amount, while emphasizing compliance with the other conditions.
ORDER :
The petitioner's vehicle, a 2013 model Tata Indica Vista Car bearing registration No.KL- 01/BK/3868 met with a road accident on 18.12.2019, resulting in fatal injuries to a pedestrian. Crime No.1410 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner at the Kalady Police Station and the offending vehicle was seized. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of his vehicle. By Annexure A2, the learned Magistrate allowed the application, granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions. The Regional Transport Officer, Angamalay, fixed the value of the vehicle at Rs.1,72,000/-and the first condition imposed as per Annexure A2 order is to deposit Rs.1,72,000/- by way of security. The learned Magistrate has stated that the vehicle was not covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident and that Rule 391(A) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle (First Amendment) Rules, 2018 prohibits release of motor vehicles involved in accidents and which are not covered by a policy of insurance, unless and until the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court for paying the compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of the accident
2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle being a 2013 model Tata Indica Vista Car, the value of the vehicle will at best be only Rs.50,000/-only and that the value was fixed at Rs.1,72,000/-without any basis. It is submitted that due to the adverse circumstances prevailing at present, it is impossible for the petitioner to raise any amount for complying with condition No.1 in Annexure A2 order.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the petitioner had failed to stop his vehicle after the accident, which is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.
5. Even though this Court cannot find fault with the condition imposed in Annexure A2, which is in accordance with Rule 391(A) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle (First Amendment) Rules, 2018, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,the present pandemic situation, which has affected all walks of life, calls for relaxation of the condition, especially in view of the other stringent conditions imposed under the impugned order.
6. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed, by modifying condition No.1 in Annexure A2 in the following manner:
“Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-by way of security and furnish personal bond for an amount of Rs.1,22,000/-.”
7. The remaining conditions in Annexure A2 order shall be scrupulously complied with.
