IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of serious offenses involving public health hazards, the release of vehicles on interim custody must be accompanied by stringent conditions to deter future violations.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner’s vehicle, bearing registration No. KL-48-R-0220 was allegedly found dumping septic waste into a water stream in a manner that pollutes the water source. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 18.03.2024 and the vehicle was seized immediately. Though petitioner filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the application. Thus this challenge under section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard Sri.Babu. S. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.Noushad. K. A, the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In W.P.(C) No. 7844/2023, a Division Bench of this Court had directed that, as a preventive measure, vehicles dumping waste into public properties should not be released without permission from this Court.

4. In December 2023, the statutes relating to the local authorities were amended to incorporate provisions for confiscation of vehicles involved in dumping waste into public properties. Despite all these exacting provisions and directions, dumping waste, especially septic waste, into public properties, is on the rise. Indulging in such odious and nefarious activities fans the commercial interests of the perpetrators. A time has come to incorporate further stringent conditions, at least when vehicles seized while dumping waste on public properties are directed to be released on interim custody.

5. In the decision in State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80, the Supreme Court had observed that in serious offences committed under the Forest and Wild Life Act, interim custody of vehicles can be granted by imposing conditions like furnishing a bank guarantee. The Supreme Court observed that for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted, a liberal approach is uncalled for, as it will frustrate the provisions of the said statute. It was further observed that if for any exceptional reason, a court is inclined to release a vehicle during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition.

6. However, in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, it has been observed that vehicles need not be kept under police custody indefinitely, pending trial, as it may destroy the vehicle itself and that conditions can be incorporated while ordering release on interim custody.

7. The purpose of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7844/2023, not to release vehicles dumping waste on public properties without obtaining permission from this Court is intended to prevent repetition of such disdainful acts. Despite the above direction, numerous instances are being reported, indicating rampant dumping of waste, especially fecal waste onto public drains and water bodies. The amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 incorporating provisions for confiscation of vehicles dumping waste on public properties is also intended to act as a deterrent. The above objectives must be borne in mind by this Court while considering the release of the vehicle on interim custody.

8. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed a serious crime of dumping septic waste into a water source, and confiscation proceedings are stated to have already been initiated under Section 219S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The possibility of repetition of similar offences using the vehicle also cannot be ignored. Therefore, stringent conditions ought to be imposed if the vehicle is permitted to be released.

9. Further, no party shall be under the impression that vehicle release would be possible on easy terms when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in the commission of an offence that creates a health hazard. Any such easy release would tempt offenders to repeat the commission of such offences as observed in Krishnan's case (supra).

10. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances this Court is of the view that stringent conditions in th