For the release of vehicles under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, security must be 30% cash and 70% immovable property/bank guarantee; ownership of immovable property can be substantiated via original land tax receipts and valuation certificates.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing registration No. KL-12-C-8309, which has been seized by the Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram, in Crime No.293/2026, on the allegation that the accused had used the vehicle for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 305(e) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act (‘Act’, for brevity), 2001.

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner had filed an application before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram (‘Trial Court’, in short). By Annexure A1 order, the Trial Court allowed the application subject to conditions. As per condition No.(i), the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,600/- as cash deposit and to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 36,400/- or furnish immovable property as security for the said amount. Condition No(i) directing the petitioner to furnish the immovable property as security is onerous and unreasonable. Hence, this petition.

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

4. In Shan V. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413), the Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that in the case of the release of the vehicles involved in offences under the Act, the applicant should be directed to furnish 30% cash security and the remaining 70% by way of the immovable property or bank guarantee. Therefore, it cannot be said that condition No. (i) is onerous and unjusti

5. However, the petitioner contends that he is ready and willing to furnish the land tax receipt of an immovable property having a value of more than Rs. 36,400/-. Therefore, the Trial Court may be directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle subject to the condition that the petitioner producing the original land tax receipt to substantiate that he is the owner of the immovable property. I find the above contention to be justifiable and reasonable. Therefore, I am satisfied that 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 the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to him furnishing cash security for Rs. 15,600/- and producing the original land tax receipt of his property with a valuation certificate issued by an approved property valuer, having a value of not less than Rs. 36,400/-. However, the petitioner shall comply with the conditions Nos. (ii) to (vi) in the impugned order.