Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21863
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MUHAMMED NOUSHAD BABU N. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7380 2023
BABU S. NAIR
The decision established that violation of bail conditions can influence the determination of requests for interim custody of seized property.
Headnote:
Bail - Custody - Section 451 Cr.P.C - The court highlighted that the powers under Section 451 should be exercised judiciously and that a petitioner violating bail conditions can impact the interim custody of a vehicle seized in relation to the alleged crime.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interim custody of a vehicle seized during an investigation involving multiple charges. The request was denied due to the petitioner's violation of bail conditions, having absconded after execution of a bond.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed with the lower court's reasoning, stressing the importance of compliance with bail conditions in deciding custody applications. However, it allowed the release of the vehicle with conditions, given the petitioner's promise to surrender.
Issues: Whether the vehicle should be returned to the petitioner despite the violation of bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the handling of Bail and release petitions should align with the principles of accountability, where non-compliance with bail conditions justifies the denial of custody.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed with conditions imposed for the return of the vehicle.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure B order dated
02.09.2022 of the special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri. The petitioner filed the above application under Section 451 Cr.P.C to get interim custody of a vehicle and the petition is filed through his power of attorney holder.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.144 of 2022 of Mankada police station, Malappuram district, registered alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 308 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(v)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegation is that on 18.03.2023 at 10 pm, CW.s 1 to 4 workers of a political party were tying their flags in Mankada town, A1 to A3 snatched away the flags, wrongfully restrained CW3 and hit against his head with an iron lever. It is also stated that the CW2 belongs to SC/ST. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Sec.451 Cr.P.C petition mainly for the reason that the petitioner, after executing a bond before the police in compliance with the bail condition, violated the condition and went abroad. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C is filed.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor. 4. The main reason for rejecting the application is mentioned in paragraph 6 of Annexure B order. It will be better to extract the same here:
“6. As per the report of Investigating officer, all accused were granted anticipatory bail and A1 and A2 executed a bond before police in compliance with the bail conditions. Petitioner herein absconded and did not comply with bail condition. Now the petitioner is seeking release of vehicle allegedly used for commission of offences, through power of attorney holder. The vehicle was seized by police and produced before the Court. Considering the offence alleged, nature of allegation and the conduct of the petitioner after getting anticipatory bail, it is not proper to release the vehicle to his power of attorney holder. Petitioner has not co-operated with investigation and if the vehicle is released to him, who is absconding, he may alter or transfer it. Therefore, this petition cannot be allowed.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.”
5. I am in full agreement with the learned Judge. But in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ), the Apex Court held that powers under Section 451 should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously after imposing appropriate conditions. But here is a case where the petitioner violated the conditions of the bail and left India. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will surrender before the court below within six months and he left India only because he has to join at his workplace and that is his only livelihood. In such circumstances, I think this petition can be allowed. If the petitioner is not appearing before the court below within six months, the court below can pass appropriate orders to repossess the vehicle even though this order is passed by this Court.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C is allowed in the following manner:
1. Annexure B order is set aside.
2. The Sessions Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri is directed to release the Car bearing Reg.No.KL-55/M-6747, to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, after imposing the conditions mentioned in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR
2003 SC 638).
3. The petitioner or his power of attorney holder shall not transfer the vehicle without the permission of the Court.
4. The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional court within six months from the date of release of the vehicle. If the petitioner is not surrendering within the abovesaid six months, the lower court can pass appropriate orders to repossess the vehicle, even though this order is passed by this Court.
5. I make it clear that the petitioner has to face the consequence for violating the bail conditions and that is to be decided separately by the competent court,
