The judgment underscored the significance of balancing individual rights against the need for law enforcement safety in the context of seized property.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed challenging Annexure 2 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Tirur, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code to release the vehicle.

3. Petitioner is the accused as well as the registered owner of Yamaha R15 Motor bike bearing Registration No.KL-55 AF 6093. The said vehicle was seized by the police in connection with Crime No.33/2023 which was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 379, 120(b), 201 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner filed an application for interim custody and the same was dismissed as per Annexure

2 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The trial court dismissed the case mainly for the reason that the petitioner is involved in similar offences. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Annexure 2 order:

“7. Perused records, the Investigating Officer filed report stating that the vehicle was used as an escort vehicle to facilitate the offence of theft to the vehicle kept in the Police station premises which the vehicle was used for transporting river sand stolen from the river in previous period. The petitioner/accused is involved in many similar crimes registered u/s 379 IPC and r/w 20 and 23 of KPRB and RRS Act and also other grave and serious offences in various police stations and included in the Kalpkanchery Police station rowdy list, is under police surveillance, habitual offender, unlicensed person for driving and a constant threat to the legal system. If the vehicle is released to the petitioner, there is every possibility of repeating the offence. More rover the vehicle should be subject to confiscation proceedings under the direction of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate u.s 23A of KPRB & RRS Act. In the light of the above facts, circumstances and reasons this petition shall stand dismissed.”

6. I think there is some force in the observation of the learned Magistrate. But it is a fact that the particular vehicle was not used for transporting the sand. It is also submitted that the above vehicle is not involved in any case. In such circumstances, there can be a direction to release the vehicle after imposing the conditions prescribed by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ). If the vehicle is involved in any other crime, the Police Authorities are free to approach the lower court and the lower court can pass appropriate orders to repossess the vehicle even though this order is passed by this Court.

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in the following manner:

i) Annexure 2 order is set aside.

ii) The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Tirur is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-55 AF 6093, after imposing the conditions mentioned inSunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ).

iii) The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle without the permission of the Court.

iv) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence in future and if such offence is committed, the Police Authorities are free to approach the lower court and the lower court can pass appropriate orders to repossess the vehicle even though this order is passed by this Court.