Allowed

Shamshad v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Feb 2012Crl.MC/368/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner's petition challenging the order that refused release of a seized vehicle. The court held that retaining the vehicle for four months caused prejudice and ordered its release on interim custody subject to a bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-14/G-8055 released on interim custody to the petitioner subject to conditions including execution of a bond with sureties.

Shamshad Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/8TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 368 of 2012

¶6

CRMP.3558/2011 of J.M.F.C. - I, PARAVUR (CRIME NO. 549/2011 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

SHAMSHAD

¶9

AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AYOOB MANZIL, H.NO.14/299, CHEMMANAD P.O., KALANAD KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶11

COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶15

ON 27-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = CRL. M.C. 368 OF 2012

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

DATED THIS, THE 27^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner assails Annexure C order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, North Paravur in C.M.P. No. 3558 of 2011 in Crime No. 549 of 2011 of Varapuzha Police Station whereby her petition under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting for the release of a vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-14/G-8055 was declined.

¶22

Having heard either side, I find that the husband of the petitioner is the 52^nd accused in the above crime alleging offences under Sections 366A, 372, 373, 376, 354 and 109 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the above mentioned vehicle was seized by the investigating officer with an allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting the prosecutrix. The petitioner pleaded before the trial court that she is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle on the alleged date of incident was in the workshop and it was not used for committing crime. However, the petition was dismissed by the learned magistrate on arriving at a conclusion that the husband of the petitioner is

¶23

CRL. M.C. 368/2012

¶24

¶25

still absconding and that the release of the vehicle will provide chances for screening the offender and that there are possibilities for destruction of evidence.

¶26

Having heard either side, I find that the vehicle was seized on 30.10.2011 and for about four months it is subjected to sun and rain and the release of the vehicle on interim custody will no way hinder the investigation or any way cause any prejudice to the prosecution. The reasons stated by the committal court in declining the petition are not cognt.

¶27

In the above circumstance, I find that it would be appropriate to release the vehicle on interim custody to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶28

The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rupees ten lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the committal court.

¶29

Petitioner shall produce the original of the R.C. book in proof of her title over the vehicle. After retaining the certified copy of the R.C. book, the same shall be returned to the petitioner. At the time of executing the bail bond, the capacity of the sureties for remitting the bond amount in case of forfeiture shall be ascertained.

¶30

CRL. M.C. 368/2012 3

¶31

The petitioner shall also file an affidavit undertaking not to alienate, transfer or let out the vehicle without permission of the Court and that it would be produced before court in the running condition.

¶32

P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶33

knc/-

Shamshad v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad v. the 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

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

S.Thoufeeq Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Ayyappadas Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahimkutty Vs Cbi, Kochi Branch