Allowed

Sidhique v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC25 Jan 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/110/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a revision seeking release of his commercial vehicle impounded at a police station. The court allowed the petition, set aside the order refusing interim custody, and directed release of the vehicle subject to the petitioner executing a bond and providing sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; vehicle released to petitioner on condition of executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like sum each and undertaking to produce vehicle as required

Sidhique Vs the Station House Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/5TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 110 of 2012 (C)

¶6

CMP NO. 46/2012 IN CR. NO. 401/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I,THAMARASSERY

¶7

PETITIONER : -

¶8

SIDHIQUE, S/O.AHMEDKUTTY, KARAKKOTH HOUSE, KAITHAPOYIL, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENT : -

¶11

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, (CRIME 401/11 OF THE KODUVALLY POLICE STATION).

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEEMA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRRP.No. 110 of 2012 (C)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶23

Crl. R.P. 110 of 2012

¶24

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2012

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2012, the petitioner

¶27

before the court below has come up in revision.

¶28

The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle

¶29

bearing registration No : KL 57/B-4850. The said vehicle is a commercial vehicle and registered as such. It is covered by a valid permit with the number 57/1112/2010 and the permit is valid up to 28/05/2015. On 04.12.2011, it is alleged that the petitioner was served with a notice from the office of the respondent calling upon him to produce his vehicle before the Police Station on the accusation that the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle have committed offence punishable under Section 279 and 353 IPC and also under Section 20 and 21 of the K.R.B.P. Act. Annexure A1 is the notice so issued. It is pointed out that the driver and the person accompanying the vehicle apprehended arrest, they had approached this court by filing Bail Applications 10316/2011

¶30

Crl. R.P. 110 of 2012 2

¶31

seeking anticipatory bail, which was granted by order dated 19.12.2011 whereby this court ordered that the accused can be released on bail after interrogation. In compliance with Annexure 1 notice, the petitioner produced the vehicle before the investigating officer. Thereafter he filed an application before the concerned court seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and that was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the investigating officer has filed a report saying that the vehicle is to be produced before the proper authority under the Sand Act.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that so far no confiscation proceedings has been initiated against the revision petitioner and the vehicle is lying in the police station. It is pointed out that the vehicle may be released to the petitioner on any condition and he is ready and willing to produce the vehicle before the statutory authority, if so ordered.

¶33

The learned public prosecutor was unable to show that any confiscation proceedings have been initiated against the

¶34

¶35

Crl. R.P. 110 of 2012

¶36

petitioner and it is felt that this is a fit case where the vehicle can be directed to be released on proper conditions.

¶37

In the result, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below within a period of two weeks from today and also on the undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the court or such other statutory authority.

¶38

P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶39

DMR /-

Sidhique v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhique v. the Station House Officer

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

Laiju Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Pappachan Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Praseed Kumar Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Viswambharan Vs State of Kerala