Allowed

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2008Crl.MC/1817/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of vehicle impounded in road traffic case. Court allowed prayer granting release subject to producing ownership documents, executing bond equivalent to vehicle value with two sureties, and undertaking to produce vehicle for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released to petitioner on conditions: production of ownership documents, execution of bond with sureties for vehicle value, and undertaking to produce vehicle for investigation.

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1817 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------CRMP.2092/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA ....................

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

SREENIVASAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 42 YEARS, VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, PALLIPURAM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2008

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner's vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident, when it was driven by the driver of the vehicle. A crime has been registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 279, 337 and 304 IPC. There is a further allegation that the vehicle, at the time when it met with the accident, was being involved in illicit transportation of sand. Allegations have also been received under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21(1) of Minor and Mineral (development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle, pending investigation. The prayer for release was opposed. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the prayer on the ground that the investigation is not complete and the driver of the vehicle had not been arrested.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation has now made much high way. The driver of the vehicle has already been granted anticipatory bail and he has

¶22

¶23

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008

¶24

been released from custody after arrest. In these circumstances, counsel prays that there is absolutely no justification in keeping the vehicle under custody any longer. The vehicle is exposed to sun and rain causing damage to it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subject to any appropriate conditions, the vehicle may now be ordered to be released to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application but, prays that appropriate conditions may be imposed. I am satisfied in considering all the relevant circumstances that this petition can now be allowed and the vehicle can be directed to be released to the petitioner.

¶26

This petition is accordingly allowed and the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and directions:

¶27

He shall produce all documents to show that he is the owner of the vehicle and is entitled for the possession of the vehicle, before the learned Magistrate.

¶28

He shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle with two solvent

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008

¶30

¶31

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall fix the appropriate value of the vehicle.

¶32

In the bond the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle before the learned Magistrate or any other authority as may be directed by the learned Magistrate from time to time.

¶33

R. BASANT, JUDGE

¶34

ttb

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008

¶36

¶37

Crl.M.C. No. 1817 OF 2008

¶38

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizar M.A. Vs S.I. of Police

R.Sivadasan Vs P.S.Sumam & Another

Joseph Challissery & Ors. Vs State of Kerala

Jayasaravana Balaji Vs the State of Kerala

Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Vibhudevan Nair Vs Sindhu Rani.L.