IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 7755 OF 2024 OCCURANCE REPORT NO.3/2024 OF MANNAMANGALAM FOREST STATION OFFICE, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2024 IN CRMP NO.3729 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -

III,THRISSUR PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

SENTHILKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS SON OF ARUMUGHAN, 169/546, DEVIKA NIVAS, KALVAKKULAM DESOM, KOPPAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK REPRSENTED BY POA VINODKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF NAGARAJ, 24/219, CHIRAKKAD DESOM, KOPPAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001.

BY ADVS.

JITHIN BABU A ARUN SAMUEL ANOOD JALAL K.J.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......….............................................

Crl.M.C.No.7755 of 2024 …................................................

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2024 ORDER Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-50- 8122 Mahindra Turbo Tractor, which was seized in connection with O.R.No.3/2024 of Mannamangalam Forest Station. The aforesaid crime was registered alleging offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)

(v) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

2. Subsequent to the registration of the crime, petitioner preferred an application as CMP No.3729/2024, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for interim custody of the vehicle. By order dated 08.07.2024, the application was allowed on conditions. One of the conditions provided for deposit of Rs.2,75,000/- as cash security or Bank guarantee apart from a bond for Rs.3,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. The said order is under challenge in this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

3. I have heard Sri.Jithin Babu A., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. While directing release of the vehicle, the learned Magistrate has referred to the decision in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 80]. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed that when a vehicle involved in a forest offence is released on interim custody, the least that should be imposed as a condition must be furnishing of security in the form of a Bank guarantee.

5. The learned Magistrate has relied upon the aforesaid decision to direct deposit of cash security or a Bank guarantee. The discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle and to impose conditions in that regard, has been exercised in consonance with the direction of the Supreme Court.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in Shihab etc. v. State of Kerala and another [2016 (4) KHC 183], the condition directing furnishing of Bank guarantee or cash security was found to be onerous, the said decision was rendered in the peculiar facts of the said case and also without considering the directions in K.Krishnan’s case (supra).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that in a subsequent case, the very same learned Magistrate had imposed only a bond to be furnished for Rs.30,00,000/- for release of a vehicle. A direction in another case cannot be a reason to hold that the impugned order is perverse or that the subsequent order of the learned Magistrate should be a reason to set aside the impugned order.

8. Since the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, I find no perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C and it is dismissed.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/04/11/2024 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7755/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE