Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABY, S/O.CHACKO GEORGE, ALUNILKKUM versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BABY, S/O.CHACKO GEORGE, ALUNILKKUM v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 1730 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9310 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1730 of 2007()

1. BABY, S/O.CHACKO GEORGE, ALUNILKKUM
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARNAMULA.

For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 1730 OF 2007

Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which is allegedly involved in an alleged offence of illegal transportation of sand and the one punishable under Sec.308 of the IPC. The petitioner is an accused in the crime, though there is no allegation that he was personally present at the scene of the crime. The learned Magistrate directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the condition imposed that the petitioner must produce bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh is too onerous and unjustified. The learned Magistrate appears to have imposed such an onerous condition solely on the basis of the impression that the said vehicle was involved in another crime of illegal transportation of sand. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, another CRL.M.C.NO. 1730 OF 2007 -: 2 :- vehicle of the petitioner was involved in such crime. Statement to the effect that the same vehicle is so involved in the order is incorrect, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Be that as it may, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take instructions as to why such a rigid condition must be imposed and insisted. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that State is interested only in ensuring that the vehicle will be available before the learned Magistrate as and when required. It is not invariable that a condition of production of bank guarantee should be insisted. Appropriate orders may, in these circumstances, be passed, it is submitted.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to offer property as security and keep the documents in court custody to show his bona fides.

4. The petitioner can apply to the learned Magistrate not to rigidly insist on the production of bank guarantee and permit him to produce appropriate other security for release of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate must consider the same after CRL.M.C.NO. 1730 OF 2007 -: 3 :- hearing the Prosecutor.

5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is allowed to the above extent. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.