Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAVIS versus STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DAVIS v. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE - Crl MC No. 539 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 4607 (5 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 539 of 2007()

1. DAVIS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :05/03/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.539 of 2007

Dated this the 5th day of March 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a car. The said car was seized by the police. The allegation is that the said car is suspected to be a stolen property. It is the petitioner's case that he had come into ownership and possession of the car bona fide. As stated earlier, the petitioner has not so far be arrayed as an accused at all. According to the petitioner, he is a bona fide purchaser. He applied for release of the car under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate ordered the release of the car subject to conditions including a condition that the petitioner must produce a bank guarantee for the bond amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. The petitioner contends that the condition is too onerous. He prays that the same may be deleted. The learned counsel points out that under identical circumstances , this court has passed Annexure-V order. Identical directions may be issued in the instant case also to ensure that the car purchased by the petitioner is not exposed to sun, rain and is not permitted to suffer deterioration. Crl.M.C.No.539/07 2

2. The learned Public Prosecutor does not raise any objection provided the relief granted is limited to the relief already granted in Annexure-V order. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted. I direct that condition No.3 which obliges the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for Rs.7,00,000/- shall stand modified. It is enough if the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The learned Magistrate may insist on appropriate documents to satisfy himself about the solvency and adequacy of the sureties. No rigid insistence on any particular mode of satisfaction need be made.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is accordingly allowed. Condition No.3 shall stand modified to the above extent.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr Crl.M.C.No.539/07 3 Crl.M.C.No.539/07 4

R.BASANT, J

C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF JULY 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.