Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15078
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
SANU T.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1411/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, LIDIA PAUL
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP.
The court emphasizes the preference for releasing seized vehicles under stringent conditions rather than detaining them, citing potential deterioration in value.
Headnote:This case considers the release of a seized vehicle involved in offenses under Sections 271, 279, 280 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The petitioner argued for release without detention, claiming no prohibition for such vehicles. The court, citing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, found it preferable to release the vehicle under stringent conditions despite the seriousness of the charges. The court quashed the previous order and outlined conditions for the vehicle's release, including bonds and participation in legal proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of vehicle involved in alleged offenses. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner requests release of vehicle. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on vehicle release over detention. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025 Petitioner’s lorry bearing registration No.KL-
59-E-9267 was seized in connection with Crime No.1003 of 2024 registered at the Peramangalam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 271 , 279, 280 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011. 2. The crime is registered on the allegation that the petitioner’s vehicle was engaged in dumping septage into a water stream.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no purpose is served by detaining the petitioner's vehicle and there is no prohibition against release of vehicles engaged in such activities.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, if at all the vehicle is to be released, that should be on stringent conditions.
5. As held by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], it is always appropriate to release the seized vehicle, rather than detaining it, resulting in damage and deterioration of value. Therefore, even though the alleged offences are very serious, the vehicle can be released on stringent conditions.
The impugned order is hence quashed and the Crl.M.C. disposed of, with the following directions;
(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate and undertake to produce the vehicle before the Court as and when directed. (ii) Petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only]
before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(iii) Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the trial court specifying the authorised facility/unit where he intends to dispose the septic tank waste presently loaded in his vehicle.
(iv) Petitioner shall not transfer, sublet, lease or sell the vehicle to any person, until conclusion of the criminal case.
(v) Petitioner shall participate in the trial as well as the confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated.
(vi) If petitioner commits similar offence in future, police will be free to repossess the vehicle and seek encashment of the Bank Guarantee.
