O R D E R

This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by Annexure-A1 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad. A Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing registration No.KL- 70-7945 belonging to the petitioner was seized by the police in connectionwiththeinvestigation of the Crime No. 1989/2021 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad. Crl.M.P No.411/2022 was filed by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle of the petitioner by invoking section 451 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution opposed the said application, by highlighting the serious nature of the offences involved, including the offence under section 302 of IPC. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Learned Magistrate and this Crl.M.C is filed challenging the same.

2. Heard Sri. Sunny Mathew, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, Learned Additional Director General of prosecution. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is opposed by the Learned ADGP, pointing out the history of this case.

3. It was pointed out that, as per the prosecution case the vehicle which was originally used for commission of the crime was destroyed by the accused person as part of their strategy to destroy the evidence. It was pointed out that this vehicle was used by the accused person to escape from the scene of occurrence and it is a vital piece of evidence. The apprehension voiced by the Learned ADGP is that if the said vehicle is released to the petitioner, it is likely to be destroyed in the manner they destroyed the vehicle used for commission of the crime.

4. On going through the impugned order, it is discernible that, the Learned Magistrate dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner taking into account the serious nature of the offense. Having taken into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that serious nature of the offences cannot be the sole reason for keeping the vehicle in custody. The position of law in this regard is settled by the honorable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat (2003 KHC 535), wherein the practice of keeping the vehicles as well as the other valuables in the police custody for longer periods was deprecated. Similarly, in Suresh Serve v. State of Kerala (2020 (3) KHC 41) a Division Bench of the of this court framed further guidelines in the matter of release of vehicles and other valuables seized by the police as part of investigation. The spirit of the principles laid down by the honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, is that, when valuable articles including the vehicles are seized by the police in connection with the investigation of the crime, the same are to be released to the person/persons who are entitled and competent to keep and preserve the same in their custody, during the course of t r i a l . It is true that, the apprehension voiced by the Learned ADGP cannot be brushed aside. However in my view, the same can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. In such circumstances, I am inclined to allow this Crl.M.C by setting aside the Annexure-A1 order passed by the Learned Magistrate and I do so. In the result this Crl.M.C allowed.

1. The vehicle bearing registration number K.L-70-7945 is directed to be released to the petitioner upon he executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate.

2. The petitioner shall produce the attested copies of the registration certificate as well as insurance certificate of the vehicle before the court.

3. Before release of the vehicle, photographs of vehicle from all the angles shall be taken and the same shall be kept as part of the records of the case. The Station House Officer shall prepare a mahazar of the vehicle in order to ascertain the present condition of the vehicle.

4. The petitioner shall not alienate or part with possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the c