Allowed

Muhammed Haneefa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Sept 2008Crl.MC/2050/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal miscellaneous petition seeking release of seized motor cycle from police custody. Court set aside impugned order rejecting interim custody. Vehicle released to petitioner subject to producing documents, executing bond with sureties, and usage per Motor Vehicle Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; vehicle released to petitioner conditioned on producing entitlement documents, executing bond with two solvent sureties, and undertaking to use vehicle per Motor Vehicles Act

Muhammed Haneefa 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2050 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CMP.5477/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA CMP.1317/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA

¶8

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

MUHAMMAD HANEEFA.T.P., S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶11

NASMATH MAHAL, VATAKARA P.O.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER

¶13

SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶14

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶15

¶16

S.H.O. VATAKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

R.BASANT, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.2050 of 2008

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of September 2008

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his claim for interim custody of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-18A783. Petitioner's application under Section 451 Cr.P.C was initially allowed by Annexure II order. Later, on an application by the investigating officer, the implementation of Annexure II order was kept under abeyance as per Annexure V order dated 15/12/2007. Subsequently, by order dated 28/3/2008, that is the impugned order, the said prayer was rejected.

¶25

The vehicle in question is admittedly seized from the possession of the petitioner. That vehicle is admittedly not involved in the commission of any offence of theft. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is now complete and the investigation has revealed that the petitioner has obtained the engine of a totally damaged vehicle and had used the same in another chasis and the vehicle in question is the result of such manipulation. This is the only indiscretion committed in respect of the vehicle. The learned Public

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.2050/08

¶27

¶28

Prosecutor submits that the requisite permission from the authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act has not been obtained by the petitioner.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall do the needful, if any necessary to ensure that he does not offend the provisions of any law. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such inadequacy may not be reckoned as a sufficient reason to keep the vehicle in the custody of the police or the court exposing the vehicle to damage, deterioration and loss.

¶30

I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that subject to appropriate and strict conditions, the vehicle can be released to the petitioner. I also take note of the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [SC 2003(2) KLT 1089] which mandates that courts must show anxiety to ensure that valuable property is not left to suffer damage and deterioration in the custody of courts/officials. Subject to appropriate conditions, I am satisfied that the vehicle can be released to the petitioner.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.2050/08

¶32

¶33

In the result,

¶34

a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶35

b) The impugned order is set aside. The vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:

¶36

i) The petitioner shall produce before the learned Magistrate all documents to show that he is the person entitled to possession of the vehicle.

¶37

ii) He shall execute a bond for the value of the vehicle with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶38

iii) The petitioner shall, in the bond to be executed by him, undertake that the vehicle shall be made use of by him strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

¶39

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.2050/08 4

Crl.M.C.No.2050/08 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008

Muhammed Haneefa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Haneefa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Eastern Treads Ltd. Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Public Pros

C.S. Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Sara Isaac Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Joseph Vs Sree Ram Investments Ltd. and Another

Sai Mohan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala