Allowed

Nidheesh P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2022Crl.MC/8990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous case seeking release of a seized contract carriage vehicle owned by the petitioners. It set aside the Magistrate's order dismissing the release application and directed the release of the vehicle after police examination was conclusive.

What did the court decide?

Criminal M.C. set aside; Annexure-E order set aside; Learned Magistrate directed to release the vehicle to petitioners with conditions determined after valuation.

Nidheesh P. Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶6

(CRIME NO. 480/2022 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1949/2022 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, MANANTHAVADY

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1NIDHEESH P.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, 163/3A, IST MAIN THIRD CROSS,
MALLESH PAIYIA, BANGLORE NORTH, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560092
2VIVEK BAL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O BALAN
CHEELUVALLIYIL HOUSE, KURUVANTHERY, CHEKKIYAD,
KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 67069
BY ADV KAVERY S THAMPI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶11

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION THIRUNELLY, PIN - 670646

¶12

3 PRAJITH. P S/O MUKUNDHAN # 41 MUKUNDHA, MEDARAHALLI, NEAR R.R COLLEGE, CHIKKAHANAVARA, BANGLORE, PIN - 560090

¶13

 SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN, PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.M.C.No. 8990 of 2022

¶21

========================= Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2022

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are the owners of a contract carriage vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-51 AE 0403, which stands registered in the name of 3 rd respondent. The vehicle mentioned above was seized by the 2 nd respondent in connection with the investigation in Crime No.480/2022.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 05.10.2022 at about 4.00 A.M, while the defacto complainant was travelling in the said Bus, which was coming from Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 7 conspired with the other accused, intercepted the aforesaid bus and robbed an amount of Rs 1.40 crores from the defacto complainant. The vehicle was subsequently taken into custody on

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

18.10.2022. The petitioner’s case is that they have purchased the aforesaid vehicle as per Annexure-A vehicle sale agreement dated 16.04.2022 and are the actual owners of the said vehicle. Thus, the petitioners submitted Crl. M.P. No.1949 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Mananthavady, seeking the release of the said vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The 3^rd respondent/registered owner submitted a counter statement in the aforesaid Criminal M.P., which is produced as Annexure-E, wherein he expressed his no objection in releasing the vehicle to the petitioners. However, as per the Annexure-E order passed by the learned Magistrate, the said application was dismissed. This Criminal M.C is filed in such circumstances.

¶28

Heard Smt.Kaveri S Thampi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Vipin Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶29

The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the reasons stated by the learned Magistrate as

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶32

per Annexure-E order for rejecting the prayer sought by the petitioners are unsustainable.

¶33

From the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is seen that the main objection raised by the investigation officer was that if the vehicle is released to the RC owners, there is a possibility that the same might be used for smuggling. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, pointed out that when the vehicle was inspected, it was found that a secret chamber was made in the said vehicle to carry cash and articles in a concealed manner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the vehicle was regularly used for illegal purposes. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the inspection of the vehicle is over. With regard to the submission relating to the secret chamber in the bus, the petitioners clarified that they were not aware of the same, as they purchased the same from the 3 rd respondent recently.

¶34

After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, no fruitful purpose would be served by

¶35

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶37

keeping the vehicle in the custody of the police, particularly when the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicle is already subjected to examination. In Sunbderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2022) 10 SCC 283 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed while considering the application for custody of the vehicles and other valuable articles seized as part of the investigation. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of keeping the vehicles in police custody for longer periods. In this case, it is discernible from the records that the police seized the said vehicle in October 2022, and even now, the same is kept in the police station, exposing to weather conditions. In such circumstances, I find this as a fit case in which some interference is required.

¶38

In such circumstances, This criminal M.C is allowed and Annexure-E order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to release the said vehicle to the petitioners,

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

and it is further clarified that the necessary conditions to be imposed can be determined by the learned Magistrate

¶42

after taking the valuation of the said vehicle.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

¶47

CRL.MC NO. 8990 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8990/2022

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :

¶51

ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE SALE AGREEMENT
DATED 16-04-2022 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXUREBTRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN
CRIME.NO.480/2022 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE NAPPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II,
MANANTHAVADY AS CRL.M.P.1949/2022
ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTG IN
CRL.M.P.1949/2022
ANNEXURE ECERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-
11-202 IN CRL.M.P.1949/2022 ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
-II, MANANTHAVADY.

¶52

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Nidheesh P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidheesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanaja A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba Salim Vs State of Kerala

Jojimon Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Ajeeb Vs State of Kerala

Ajeeb Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep S Kumar Vs State of Kerala