Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
MUHAMMED HANEEFA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10959 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SMT.ABHIRAMI S., SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.PRASANATH, PP
Court may relax unnecessary conditions imposed by the Trial Court if sufficient security exists to protect interests.
Headnote:The petitioner filed CMP No.5138 of 2024 under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody of Rs.1,38,000 held in a bank. The Trial Court conditionally released the amount, imposing a bank guarantee which was contended as onerous by the petitioner. The Court recognized the existing bond as sufficient security and found the additional condition unnecessary. The final ruling set aside the problematic condition while insisting on compliance with remaining conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claiming interim custody under criminal procedure. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the conditions imposed. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on existing security. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
The petitioner had filed CMP No.5138 of 2024 under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, claiming interim custody of Rs.1,38,000/-, which was allegedly put on hold in a bank account, pursuant to the registration of Crime No.420 of 2024 by the Kalpakanchery Police Station, Malappuram.
2. By Annexure B order, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Tirur (Trial Court), allowed the application and ordered the amount to be released to the petitioner, but subject to six conditions. As per condition No.2, the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.1,40,000/- or immovable property security for the said amount. The petitioner contends that condition No.2 is onerous and unsustainable in law.
According to him, it was after the Trial Court was convinced that the money belonged to the petitioner, the same was directed to be released to him. Moreover, the Trial court has directed the petitioner to execute a bond with two solvent sureties for the said amount and also file an affidavit before the Trial Court stating that the petitioner is ready to produce the money, if so required. Therefore, condition No.2 in Annexure B order may be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Trial Court, by Annexure B order, after finding that the petitioner is the owner of the money, has directed the money to be released to him, subject to six conditions. The Trial Court has specifically directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.1,40,000/- with two solvent sureties, and to furnish a bank guarantee or immovable property security for the said amount. This, according to me, is unnecessary and unwarranted, because the petitioner has already been directed to execute a bond with two solvent sureties for the said amount, which is more than sufficient to secure the amount, in case it is required in future. Moreover, the petitioner has also been directed that he should execute an affidavit undertaking to produce the money, if required.
Taking into consideration condition Nos.2 and 4 in Annexure B order, I am satisfied that condition No.2 is to be deleted. Accordingly, I allow this Crl.M.C. by setting aside condition No.2 in Annexure B order. However, the petitioner shall comply with condition Nos.1, 3 to 6 in Annexure B order.
