SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
ANTO KUNJAIPU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1419 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.P.SANTHI
For the Respondents: KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.VIDHYA A.C, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The court established that procedural compliance requires vehicles to be produced before a Magistrate for release applications.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment relates to offenses under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Facts of the Case: The petitioner seeks release of his seized vehicle on grounds he committed no offense.

Findings of Court:
The court finds the vehicle's release can't be directed under Article 226 and must be produced before a Magistrate.

Issues: The court addresses whether the petitioner’s vehicle can be released directly.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for procedural compliance in such instances, directing production before the Magistrate.

Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of as per the discussed order.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks vehicle release. (Para 1)
2. government pleader cites applicable laws. (Para 2)
3. court directs vehicle production before magistrate. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The short grievance of the petitioner is that his vehicle, a J.C.B, bearing no.KL-63F-6379, has been seized by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P2 F.I.R. According to the learned counsel, petitioner's vehicle was taken on hire by the 5th respondent and the petitioner had absolutely no clue whether the activities going on is a private land or a Government land. The petitioner has not committed any offence. Nor is there any violation of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act . On such premise, the petitioner seeks release of the vehicle.

2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P2 F.I.R would reveal offences under Sections 3 29 (3), 303(2), read with, Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023; Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act , 1984, and also, under Section 7 (a) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957.

3. Having taken note of the above-referred facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the vehicle cannot be directed in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The vehicle has to be produced before the Magistrate concerned going by the procedural regime. This Court directs the S.H.O Infopark Police Station, Kakkanad to produce the vehicle before the Magistrate, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two days from today (30.01.2026). Once the vehicle is produced before the Magistrate concerned, it will be open for the petitioner to make necessary application, as per law seeking release of the vehicle. Application, if any, filed in that direction would be considered by the learned Magistrate, expeditiously, in accordance with law. To ensure compliance, this Court suo moto impleads the S.H.O, Infopark Police Station, Kakkanad as the additional 6th respondent. Registry will carry out the impleadment. Learned Government Pleader will inform the gist of this judgment to the additional 6th respondent for the purpose of compliance today itself.

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of, as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top