Partly allowed

Sreevalsan.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2236/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the cash security deposit requirement under Section 451 Cr.P.C. imposed on a property owner. The court ruled that since the prosecution had no case against the petitioner, the cash deposit direction was unwarranted, though other conditions remained in force.

What did the court decide?

Condition (i) directing cash security of Rs.6 lakhs was set aside; vehicle released to petitioner subject to other conditions and prior court permission for assignment.

Sreevalsan.P Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.2236 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 844/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, MANANTHAVADY DATED 23-02-2019

¶7

CRIME NO.385/2018 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD

¶8

PETITIONER/OWNER OF THE PROPERTY :

¶9

SREEVALSAN.P., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRANATH, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTERI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA 679 321.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU TOM CHERUVALLY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.JERRY VARGHESE SRI.JOHNY GEORGE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.K.R.JITHIN SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT M K PUSHPALATHA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC.NO.2236 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Mananthavady, by which, while releasing a vehicle to the petitioner under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate, in addition to other conditions, has ordered the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) as cash security.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner and before permanently registering it in his name, he had entered into an agreement to transfer the vehicle to the 1^st accused on receiving a sum of Rs.11 lakhs. The prosecution allegation is that the amount which was paid by the 1^st accused was the proceeds of the crime, which was committed by the 1^st accused and others. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner was having any sort of involvement and in that view of the matter, directing the petitioner to deposit a huge sum as cash security was unwarranted is the submission.

¶21

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the records.

¶22

The learned Magistrate has rightfully allowed the application for interim custody and stringent conditions have been imposed to

¶23

CRL.MC.NO.2236 OF 2019

¶24

¶25

ensure that the vehicle is available at a later stage. The petitioner has also been ordered to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.12,40,000/with two solvent sureties. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to concur with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the direction to deposit cash was unwarranted, particularly when, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has anything to do with the acts committed by the accused. Though the order was passed more than three months back, the petitioner has not been able to get the custody of vehicle.

¶26

In view of the above, the condition No.(i) in Annexure-E order dated 23.02.2019 insofar as it directs the petitioner herein to deposit cash security of Rs.6 lakhs will stand set aside. If the other conditions are complied with, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. It is also made clear that in no event, the petitioner shall assign the vehicle without obtaining previous permission of the court having jurisdiction.

¶27

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC.NO.2236 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:

¶35

ANNEXURE A	TRUE COPY OF POLICE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE FOR HOME STAYS, SERVICED VILLAS, RESORTS AND LODGES.
ANNEXURE B	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE OF PETITIONERS INNOVA CRYSTA CAR (8 SEATER ENGINE NO.2GD A197558).
ANNEXURE C	TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S INNOVA CRYSTA CAR (8 SEATER, ENGINE NO.2GD A1 97558).
ANNEXURE D	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER FILED OBJECTING THE PETITION TO THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW.
ANNEXURE E	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/2/19 IN CRL.M.P. NO.844/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MANANTHAVADY.

¶36

RESPONDENTS(S) ANNEXURES: NIL

Sreevalsan.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreevalsan.P 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

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh, Vs State of Kerala

Sunil @ Valiyakuttan (Ai) Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Shajahan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

Sajan, Vs Devarajan