Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
NEJI L – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10463 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.1451/2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks interim custody of a seized vehicle under challenging conditions. (Para 1) |
| 2. public prosecutor cites prior judgment to justify conditions. (Para 2) |
| 3. court affirms legality of the imposed conditions based on case law. (Para 3) |
| 4. crl.m.c. is ultimately dismissed. (Para 4) |
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KL 41D 3494, which has been seized by the Aluva East Police Station in Crime No.1451/2025 alleging that the vehicle was used to commit offences punishable under Section 17(4) of the Kerala Protection of River Banks Act and Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 . The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.2799/2025 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva, seeking interim custody of the vehicle. By Annexure-4 order, the learned Magistrate has allowed the application, but subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit a cash security of Rs.37,350/- and provide bank guarantee or property security for Rs.1,24,500/-. The said condition in Annexure-4 order is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
2. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the above condition has been imposed by the learned Magistrate based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413 (FB)), wherein this Court has categorically held that in cases where interim custody of the vehicle is ordered for the offences under the above Acts, it is imperative that the owner should deposit 30% of the value in cash and furnish security by way of immovable property or bank guarantee for the remaining value. It is in consonance with the principles laid down in the said decision that Annexure-4 order has been passed.
4. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, especially the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforecited decision, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in Annexure-4 order.
The Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
