Allowed

Sameeda v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021Crl.MC/442/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Case deals with the application by a registered car owner for interim release of a vehicle seized and kept in judicial custody during a murder investigation. The High Court considered whether the car should remain detained pending the trial.

What did the court decide?

The seized vehicle was released to the petitioner on a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding maintenance, non-transfer, and production for investigation.

Sameeda Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 442 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1395/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KASARAGOD

PETITIONER:

SAMEEDA

AGED 26 YEARS

D/O.ABDUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT 1/81, SAJIPAPETE, SAJIPANADU, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, STATE OF KARNATAKA.

¶11

BY ADVS. T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ SMT.CHANDRALEKHA SANU SHRI.JIBY ANTONY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/TATE:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.

¶15

BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.M.C.No. 442 OF 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. KA-25-Z-6263 which was seized during investigation in Crime No. 30 of 2020 of Manjeshwar police station. Initially, the crime was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. on the death of Ismail, the brother of the first informant. During investigation, it came out that it was a murder and thus section of law was incorporated as Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, that it came out that the accused persons had used the said car for reaching the place of occurrence and after the commission of the crime and also for escaping from the scene of occurrence. Thus the car was seized on 05.02.2020 and since then is remaining in judicial custody. The petitioner is the registered owner; he submits that he is not an accused, thus filed an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody. By Annexure-A1 order, the application was dismissed on the consideration that it is a heinous crime and that it was used for the commission of the crime.

¶21

¶22

Crl.M.C.No. 442 OF 2021

¶23

The learned Magistrate had also noticed that the car was

¶24

used for committing the crime, traces collected from the car have been sent for chemical examination and now report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is awaited.

¶25

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been laid and now the case is pending as C.P. No. 76 of 2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kasaragod, and that there is no meaning in detaining the car.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. According to him even though the final report is laid, chemical examination report is awaited. Bloodstains were found from inside the car; in order to ascertain whether the blood matched that of the deceased, the chemical examination report has to be received.

¶28

The alleged crime was committed on 20.01.2020. The Car

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C.No. 442 OF 2021

¶31

was taken into custody on 05.02.2020. The bloodstains etc have been collected from inside the car and now what remains is getting the report from the Chemical Examination Laboratory. In the light of the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vehicles cannot be detained in custody unnecessarily.

¶32

In the circumstances, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner who is the registered owner, on the following conditions:

¶33

1. He shall execute a bond for Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees

¶34

ten lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the

¶35

like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

¶36

court;

¶37

1. He shall not transfer ownership or possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings;

¶38

1. He shall upkeep the vehicle under proper maintenance, remitting tax, insurance premium etc.;

¶39

1. He shall not alter the nature, character and colour of

¶40

Crl.M.C.No. 442 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

the vehicle;

¶43

1. He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose;

¶44

1. He shall produce the vehicle as and when necessary

¶45

by the Investigating Officer/Court.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL

JUDGE

RMV/03/12/2021

Crl.M.C.No. 442 OF 2021

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 442/2021

¶53

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶54

ANNEXURE A1

¶55

THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2020 IN CMP NO.1395/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II(ADDITIONAL

¶56

MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD.

Sameeda v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameeda 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Jayanesh K.P Vs State of Kerala

Jijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Suniladevi P.S Vs Sakthi Finance Limited

Suniladevi P.S Vs the State of Kerala

Ammad v, Vs State of Kerala