VIPIN SAGAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, claiming to be the power of attorney of the registered owner of a car bearing number KL-46/A 6863 seized by the Vadanappally police in connection with Crime No. 721 of 2008 of that station, moved C.M.P. No. 12186 of 2008 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad for interim custody of the said vehicle. Petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate upholding objection of the Investigating Officer that if the car is given custody to the Petitioner it will be destroyed and evidence will be lost. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged it before the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.R.P. No. 2 of 2009. In this proceeding Petitioner challenges the impugned order and prays for release of the vehicle to him. I have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. learned Counsel submitted that there is no necessity to detain the vehicle which will only result in it getting damaged and lost. Learned Public Prosecutor has highlighted the apprehension of the Investigating Officer as stated before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) Case is that on 01.10.2008 de facto complainant while talking to one Dhanesh, 5 person came in the car (allegedly) involved in this proceeding and attacked the said Dhanesh with swords. The car was seized by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. According to the Petitioner the car was given on rent-a-car basis to CW28. It is stated that the third accused got the car from CW28.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 AIR(SC) 638 has given guidelines as to custody of material objects involved in cases. Having regard to the circumstances stated before me, I do not think it necessary to detain the vehicle till trial of the case is over which will only result in the vehicle getting damaged and lost. Having regard to these circumstances I am inclined to give interim custody of the vehicle to the Petitioner but subject to conditions.