Partly allowed

Syed Meeran, Aged 37 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC25 Jul 2017CRL RC/978/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim custody of a seized Omni bus to the petitioner in a forgery case. Order dismissed lower court rejection, directing release upon payment of property security and subject to stringent conditions prohibiting tampering, sale, or pledge until trial completion.

What did the court decide?

The seized Ashoka Leyland Omni bus shall be returned to the petitioner on payment of property security of Rs.20,00,000/- subject to stringent conditions regarding tampering, transfer, or pledge.

Syed Meeran, Aged 37 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.07.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.978 of 2017

¶6

Syed Meeran .. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, Krishnakiri District (Crime No.552/2016)

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Hosur in Cr.M.P.No.2884 of 2017 in Crime No.552 of 2016 dated 5.7.2017

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. E.C.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr. R.Sekar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) ***** O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Hosur in Cr.M.P.No.2884 of 2017 in Crime No.552 of 2016, dated 05.07.2017.

¶13

The petitioner's vehicle (Omni bus) bearing Registration No.KA-1-B-4705 (Ashok Leyland model), was intercepted by the concerned regional transport officer at Hosur on 21.09.2016. The said authority found that the vehicle was plying without proper documents and in fact, the documents which were in possession of the persons who operated the vehicle, were said to be tampered or forged one. Therefore, the said authority seized the vehicle and produced the same at the Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri, and a case to that effect has been registered against the petitioner, punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 475, 474, 477 A, in Crime No.552 of 2016.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Therefore the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.2957 of 2017 before this Court and obtained an order of Anticipatory bail, based on which, after surrendering himself, he is on bail now.

¶16

Subsequently, the petitioner has approached the Court below with a petition under section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking interim custody of the vehicle.

¶17

According to the petitioner, since the vehicle is kept in an open place for months together it will get damaged. Also, if the vehicle is continuously exposed to sunlight and rain, parts of the vehicle would get damaged and that will cause huge loss to the petitioner. Therefore, keeping the said vehicle idly in the police station would in no way be useful to the investigating agency also, as the vehicle would not be required for completion of investigation. Moreover, as and when investigating agency requires, the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the said vehicle for inspection.

¶18

However, the learned Judge having considered the claim of the petitioner, and also the objection raised by the respondent, has rejected the said application on 05.07.2017, as against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶19

Mr. E.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, even the alleged offences against the petitioner relates to the tampering and forgery of documents and for investigating the same, the vehicle is no more required. In this regard, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce property security, equal to the value of the vehicle, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is only about Rs.20,00,000/- .

¶20

Per contra, Mr. R.Sekar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), by relaying upon the FIR filed against the petitioner, would state that the petitioner has involved in a similar crime earlier, where also the investigation is pending and this is the second time the petitioner is involved in this kind of crime. Therefore, if the vehicle is released, the petitioner would indulge in this kind of crime again and again. Therefore, on that ground, the respondent has objected to release of the vehicle, which was accepted by the Court below and accordingly, the petition was dismissed by the lower Court. According to the the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) there is no infirmity in the order impugned herein and he seeks to sustain the same.

¶21

I have heard the rival submissions made by both sides.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioner relates to forgery and other related offences under section 465, 468, 471, 475, 474, 477(A) of IPC. Insofar as the vehicle is concerned, there is no other violation noticed against the petitioner. Even for the alleged offences against the petitioner, the respondent police can investigate the same and file a final report before the concerned Court and for the said purpose, if the respondent police wants to inspect the vehicle, the same can be produced by the petitioner as and when required. For the said purpose, the vehicle need not be kept idle for months together. Since it is a motor vehicle, if it is kept idle for a longer period, certainly the value would get diminished and the running condition will also be affected. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the vehicle can be returned to the petitioner for interim custody, of course, with stringent conditions.

¶24

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶25

(i) The vehicle in question namely Ashoka Leyland Omni bus with Registration No. KA-51-B-4705, shall be returned to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner gives a property security for the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-[Rupees Twenty Lakhs only], which is approximately the value of the vehicle as of now.

¶26

(ii) The petitioner shall not alter or tamper with any parts of the vehicle.

¶27

(iii) The petitioner shall not either transfer/sale or pledge the vehicle under any circumstances, until the trial is completed or further orders are passed by the trial Court.

¶28

(iv) The vehicle shall be photographed and photos and negative of the same shall be kept in safe custody by the respondent police for future usage, if need be.

¶29

All these conditions have to be complied with by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and on completion of the same, the Court below shall pass necessary orders to release the vehicle as indicated above.

¶30

With these observation, this Criminal Revision case is disposed of.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

bri/tar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

¶36

1.The Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, Krishnakiri District.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶38

3.The Judicial Magistrate II,Hosur

¶39

+1cc to Mr.E.C.Ramesh,Advocate sr.52456

¶40

Crl.R.C.No.978 of 2017
ss(26/7/2017)

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Syed Meeran, Aged 37 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Meeran, Aged 37 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

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 @ Santhoshkumar, Vs the First Class Executive

K.Sathappan, M/a 38 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Pastor.K.Samuvel M/a 55 Yrs, Vs the Sub Divisional

Thulja Traders Vs Venkatesh Trading Co., Rep by

D.Urairaj, M/a 65 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Rajanpuri, (55) Vs Ravindrakumar Agarwal