The court emphasized that when conditions imposed by the court for interim custody are violated, the court has the authority to cancel the bail bond and direct the return of the properties to avoid hindrance to the trial of the criminal case.

1. The Crl.R.Cs. have been filed against the impugned orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.557 and 558 of 2007 in C.C.No.14 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.4, Coimbatore, directing the revision petitioners to return the material objects/properties and handed over to them for interim custody.

2. The averments in the petitions filed in Crl.M.P.Nos.557 and 558 of 2007 in C.C.No14 of 2007, are as follows:

The second respondent herein filed a case in Cr.No.456 of 2005 for the offence under Section 420 IPC against one Prakash and seized the properties (material objects), namely Silambu Rattinam (TAMIL) and Pinky train and the same were produced before the Court on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioners and the first respondent herein. The petitioners and the first respondent herein are the partners and they have filed applications for interim custody of the properties and as per the order dated 20.6.2005 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4063 of 2005, the interim custody of Silambu Rattinam was granted in favour of the petitioners and the first respondent herein and they were directed to execute a bond for Rs.10 lakhs and similarly, by order dated 24.6.2005 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4469 of 2005, the interim custody of Pinky Train was granted in favour of the petitioners and the first respondent herein and they were directed to execute a bond for Rs.5 lakhs and further, with a direction that they should not alter or sell the properties. The petitioners and the first respondent herein complied with the said conditions and took away both the said properties and since the said properties were not under the custody of the first respondent herein, he has come forward with the applications to direct the petitioners herein (respondents 1 and 2 before Court below) to produce the properties and prayed for return of the properties.

3. The gist and essence of the counter affidavit in Crl.M.P.Nos.557 and 558 of 2007 in C.C.No14 of 2007, are as follows:

If any condition has not been complied with, action would be initiated only under Section 446-A of Cr.P.C., and the petitions are not maintainable. The first respondent is only name lender with regard to the properties and he has not invested even a single pie for the properties. The petitioners herein paid entire sum of Rs.5,10,000/- to the accused in this case. There is no breach of condition by the petitioners herein (respondents 1 and 2 before the Court below) and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications. The first respondent has to move the Civil Court for his grievance if any. Hence, the petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 before Court below) prayed for dismissal of the applications.

4. The trial Court, after considering the arguments of both sides' counsel and after cancelling the bail bond, gave a direction to hand over the properties, namely pinky train and Silambu Ratinam to the Court, against which, the present Crl.R.Cs. have been preferred.

5. This Court heard the arguments of both sides' counsel. It is admitted that the petitioners and the first respondent herein purchased the properties, namely Silambu Rattinam and Pinky Train from one Prakash, who is the accused in this case. Since he has not handed over the possession of the properties, i.e. Silambu Rattinam and Pinky Train, the petitioners and the first respondent preferred a complaint against the said Prakash and the second respondent herein registered a case in Cr.No.456 of 2005 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. During investigation, the said properties have been seized and produced before Court. The petitioners and the first respondent herein who are the partners, filed application for interim custody of the properties. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court ordered interim custody with the condition to execute the bond for Rs.10 lakhs, for Silmabu Rattinam and Rs.5 lakhs for Pinky Train, with condition that the petitioners and the first respondent herein shall not alter or alie