Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2866
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
V. Patchamal Acuthan
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police Puthiyamputhur Police Station, Puthiyamputhur
Crl.R.C(MD).No. 367 of 2014
Decided on: 01-09-2014
For the Petitioner:R.J. Karthick for M. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The bond amount for interim custody of seized property should be reasonable and proportionate to the value of the property, and the requirement for the surety to produce a solvency certificate can be upheld.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. - The court modified the bond amount and solvency requirement imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, reducing the bond amount to Rs.5 Lakhs from Rs.10 Lakhs and the amount for which the solvency is to be shown by the surety to Rs.5 Lakhs.
Fact of the Case:
A case was registered against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. based on a complaint. The petitioner sought interim custody of a seized vehicle, challenging the onerous conditions imposed by the Judicial Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bond amount fixed by the Judicial Magistrate was arbitrary and reduced it to Rs.5 Lakhs from Rs.10 Lakhs. The requirement for solvency certificate from the surety was upheld.
Issues: The issues revolved around the onerous conditions imposed by the Judicial Magistrate for granting interim custody of the seized vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bond amount should be reasonable and proportionate to the value of the property to be released. It also upheld the requirement for the surety to produce a solvency certificate.
Final Decision: The court modified the order of the Judicial Magistrate, reducing the bond amount to Rs.5 Lakhs and the amount for which the solvency is to be shown by the surety to Rs.5 Lakhs.
1. The respondent has today filed counter affidavit.
2. The submissions made by Mr. R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for the petitioner and by Mrs. S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent are heard.
3. A case was registered against the petitioner herein and two others, based on the complaint of one Saravanan S/o Perumpadaiyan. It has been alleged in the complaint that while he was clearing the shrubs which were causing hindrance to the free movement of vehicles on Mangammal road at Velayuthapuram in front of his company, using a JCB bearing Registration No.TN-69-Q-5977, the petitioner and others came there and raised objections and besides raising objections, abused them using filthy language and also assaulted the driver and cleaner of the JCB; that when they were questioned regarding the proprietary of their act by the Officers of the defacto complainant's Company, the petitioner drove a Bolero car bearing Registration No.TN-69-AK-2072 and deliberately hit it against the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-H-2497 belonging to Senthilkumar, the security officer of the company of the defacto complainant and that in addition to that, the petitioner and the people, who came along with him, caused threat to kill them.
4. The said case was registered as Cr.No.132 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. As the Bolero car was allegedly used as a weapon for the commission of offence, the same was seized and was remanded in the said case. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin under Section 451 Cr.P.C. praying for an order directing the entrustment of the interim custody of the vehicle to him. After hearing the objections of the police in the above said petition, which was taken on file as Cr.M.P.NO.3780 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 24.07.2014, directing the release of the vehicle to enable the petitioner to have its interim custody on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10Lakhs along with one surety for a likesum, with a further condition that the surety should produce solvency certificate with the attestation of the Tahsildar, besides incorporating other usual conditions.
5. Complaining that the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the said order dated 24.07.2014 and especially the condition fixing the amount of bond as Rs.10Lakhs whereas the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase itself was Rs.7Lakhs with a further direction that the surety should produce solvency certificate attested by the Tahsildar, were too onerous, the petitioner has come forward with the revision petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that apart from the fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate fixed neaerly double the amount of the value of the vehicle as the amount for which the bond has to be executed, the learned Judicial Magistrate has also imposed a condition that the surety should produce a solvency certificate attested by the Tahsildar; that the said condition, according to the petitioner, is onerous and that such onerous condition should be modified.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend that the very same vehicle was involved in yet another criminal case and was released pursuant to an order passed in that criminal case; that even thereafter, the petitioner used the vehicle for the commission of offences alleged in the present case; that there is every possibility of his using the vehicle for his unlawful activities if it is released and that strictly speaking, the vehicle ought not to have been released. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that under such circumstances alone, such a stringent condition came to be imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and that the same does not deserve any interference by this Court in ex
