The court held that a vehicle seized in connection with a concluded trial should be released to its owner, as it is no longer necessary for trial.

ORDER

The petitioner challenges Annexure A3 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam under Section 497 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘the BNSS’) refusing to release the vehicle belonging to him.

2. The petitioner was an accused in Crime No.1854/2024 of Kollam East Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 270 and 271 of the BNSS and Section 120 (e) of the Kerala Police Act . The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-17-X-8560. The prosecution allegation is that the said vehicle was seen depositing latrine waste into a water source. The vehicle was seized in connection with the crime. The petitioner filed an application as C.M.P. No.5846/2024 for release of the vehicle. However, it was dismissed as per Annexure A3 order by the learned Magistrate holding that there is possibility of committing similar offence by the petitioner using the said vehicle. It is challenging Annexure A3, this revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Sri. Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The case was registered against the driver of the vehicle. The accused in Crime No.1854/2024 of Kollam East Police Station pleaded guilty and he was convicted. Thus, the vehicle is no longer necessary for the purpose of trial. There is no provision for confiscation of the said vehicle. Hence, the learned Magistrate is not at all justified in not releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. The reason shown by the learned Magistrate that there is possibility of committing similar offence using the said vehicle is without any basis. It is true that in Suhail M.A. v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 503] , this Court has held that stringent condition should be imposed while releasing the vehicle involved in the offences like Sections 270 and 271 of BNSS. That was a case where the vehicle was released before the conclusion of the trial. Here is a case where the trial is concluded and entered in conviction. There is no appeal.

5. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only).

The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.