The court can modify onerous conditions for interim custody to prevent harm to property when justified by the circumstances.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the registered owner of a tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-59-E-3864, which was seized by the Erattupetta Police Station in Crime No.1433 of 2025 on the allegation that the accused person, who drove the tanker lorry had dumped toilet waste in a public place and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 270 , 271, 272 and 279 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section

120(e) of the Kerala Police Act .

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Erattupetta ('Trial Court', in short). However, by Annexure A4 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application subject to conditions. As per condition No.2, the petitioner has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.3,15,000/- before the said court, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Suhail M.A. v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (5) KHC 503 ]. Condition No.2 is onerous and unjustifiable. The petitioner's vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature and likely to get rusted and ruined. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2003 SC 638 ]. Hence, condition No.2 in Annexure A4 order may be set aside.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer on 14.11.2025. The vehicle has been lying in judicial custody for the last three months. The learned Magistrate has allowed the petitioner's application for interim custody, but subject to the condition that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.3,15,000/-. It is the petitioner's specific case that he does not have the financial means to furnish the bank guarantee for the above- said amount. Moreover, the vehicle is lying exposed to the vagaries of nature and likely to get ruined.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that interim custody of the vehicle shall be given to its owner in order to avoid getting destroyed.

6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the petitioner's vehicle is lying in judicial custody for the last three months, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Sagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed in the following manner:

i) Condition Nos.1 and 2 in Annexure A4 order is modified; ii) The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

iii) On the petitioner executing the said bond, the Trial Court is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner;

iv) The petitioner shall also comply with condition Nos.3 to 5 in Annexure A4 order;

v) This order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority proceeding with the confiscation proceedings, if any, proposed.

Sd/-