The court affirmed the use of alternative documentation to secure interim custody, illustrating judicial discretion in ensuring procedural fairness in legal proceedings.

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner on a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-46-6357, which has been seized by the Mukkom Police Station in Crime No.1039/2025, alleging that the accused had used the vehicle for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 303 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001.

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner had filed CMP No.2625/2025 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarasserry (‘Trial Court’, in short). By Annexure 2 order, the above Court allowed the application subject to conditions. As per condition No.5, the petitioner has been directed to furnish bank guarantee or security in the form of immovable property for Rs.75,600/-. The petitioner attempted to execute the bond and furnish security by way of immovable property. However, the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to produce the original title deeds of his property. The insistence to produce the original title deeds is onerous and unreasonable. There is no statutory provision enabling the above course. However, the petitioner is willing to produce the original land tax receipt to substantiate that he is the owner of the property, which is worth more than Rs.75,600/-. Hence, the Trial Court may be directed to accept the land tax receipt produced by the petitioner in respect of his property, instead of insisting for the production of his original title deeds.

3, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Undisputedly, by Annexure 2 order, the interim custody of the vehicle has been ordered to be given to the petitioner subject to eight conditions. As per Condition No.5, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to either furnish bank guarantee or immovable property as security for Rs.75,600/-.

5. The petitioner claims that he is in possession of a immovable property, which is worth more than Rs.75,600/-. However, he is unable to produce the original title deeds of the property. In turn, the petitioner is willing to produce the original land tax receipt of the property to substantiate that he is the owner of the property. I find the above contention justifiable, and this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ,2023.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I confirm Annexure 2 order, but direct the Trial Court to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on him producing the original land tax receipt of his property with a valuation certificate of his property issued by an approved property valuer, and on complying with conditions Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 in Annexure A2 order.

Sd/-