Partly allowed

Kunhalavi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2010Crl.MC/399/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an interim custody order, the Special Judge imposed a cash deposit condition. The High Court held that a bank guarantee in lieu of cash deposit was sufficient and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in lieu of a cash deposit of Rs. 2,80,000 to release the lorry.

Kunhalavi Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 399 of 2010()

¶6

---------------------------------

¶7

{AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.12.09 IN CMP NO.780/2009 IN CR.NO.479 OF 2009 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT CASES) VADAKARA}

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :-

¶9

------------------------------------

¶10

KUNHALAVI, S/O.MOIDEEN, CHOZHIMANGALATH HOUSE, PALLIPPADI, NO.3, POKKOTTUMPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

¶13

--------------------------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SHO PERINTALMANNA POLICE STATION.

¶15

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARCOTIC CELL, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JVT

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶20

CRL.M.C.NO.399 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17^th February 2010

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

As per Annexure-A2 order dated

¶23

29/12/2009 Crl.M.P.780/2009 filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure in crime No.479/2009 for interim custody of lorry KL-11B/4043 was allowed on conditions. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the condition directing the petitioner to produce cash deposit of Rs.2,80,000/-, in addition to execution of

¶24

the bond.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the petitioner and learned Public

¶27

Prosecutor were heard.

¶28

Argument of the learned counsel

¶29

Crmc 399/10

¶30

¶31

is that vehicle was not used for transporting narcotic drugs and in such circumstances, direction to deposit Rs.2,80,000/- is too onerous and therefore, it is to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be directed to execute a bond to get the vehicle released.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor

¶33

submitted that when the vehicle is liable for confiscation the condition may not be modified.

¶34

When the vehicle is liable for

¶35

confiscation learned Special Judge was justified in imposing necessary condition for releasing the vehicle. Petitioner was directed to deposit only Rs.2,80,000/-. As the vehicle is a lorry, I find no reason to

¶36

Crmc 399/10 3

¶37

interfere with that order except providing that instead of making cash deposit, petitioner need furnish a bank guarantee for the said amount.

¶38

Petition is disposed.

¶39

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶40

uj.

Kunhalavi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhalavi 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

O.K.Nandakumar Vs State of Kerala

Santha Devi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Shaiju Vs the State of Kerala and Another

M.K.Muhammed Aslam Vs Mohammed Ashraf & Another

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala