Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12840
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
Sulfikar. M.A. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC 580/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Minimol K.M.
For the Respondents: Smt. Pushpalatha M.K.
The judgment establishes that seized vehicles may be released under strict conditions to prevent deterioration, provided prior legal permissions were obtained.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involves offences under Section 271 of BNS, 2023 and Section 120(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Facts of the Case: The petitioner’s vehicle was seized based on allegations regarding septage waste discharge.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed it appropriate to release the vehicle considering the petitioner had applied for the necessary disposal pass.
Issues: The court interrogates whether the seized vehicle can be released on conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Citing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, the court reasoned that avoiding vehicle deterioration was vital.
Result: The impugned order is quashed with conditions for release.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of vehicles should consider prior legal permissions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding conditions for the release of the seized vehicle. (Para 4) |
| 3. reference to precedent emphasizing vehicle release to prevent deterioration. (Para 5) |
O RDER
Petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.KL 39 B
9683 was seized in connection with Crime No.1394 of 2024 registered at the Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station for offences punishable under Section 271 of BNS , 2023 and Section
120(e) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011.
2. The crime is registered on the allegation that petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the police on the suspicion that the septage waste in it would be discharged in public premises.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure A4 to point out that requisite application for obtaining the pass for transporting and discharging the septic tank waste at the Brahmapuram Plant was submitted on 9.12.2024 itself and Annexure A3 pass was generated at 12.53 p.m on 12.12.2024. Unfortunately, just prior to the issuance of pass, the vehicle was intercepted at 12.50 p.m while on its way to the Brahmapuram FST. Learned Counsel submits that, after registering the crime, the waste loaded in the vehicle was discharged at the Plant of the Kochi Corporation.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, if at all the vehicle is 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 appropriate to release seized vehicles, rather than detaining them, resulting in damage and deterioration of value. Therefore, even though the alleged offence is serious, the vehicle can be released. The fact that the waste was being transported after applying for pass has pursuaded this Court to relax the conditions.
The impugned order is hence quashed and the Crl.M.C. disposed of, with the following directions;
(i) Petitioner shall execute a self bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One lakh only) before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and undertake to produce the vehicle as and when directed.
(ii) Petitioner shall not transfer, sublet, lease or sell the vehicle to any person, until conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Petitioner shall participate in the trial as well as the confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated.
(iv) If petitioner commits similar offence in future, police will be free to repossess the vehicle.
