SHIJO MON JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing registration No. KL-33-9772. The vehicle was seized by the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Mukkuzhy Forest Station, Pathanamthitta, on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand from the forest in violation of Ss. 27(1) (e) (iv) & (v) and 52(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. To obtain the interim custody of the vehicle, the petitioner filed a petition before the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally, under Sec. 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 'BNSS'). By Annexure B order, the learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the vehicle, but subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for Rs.3,00,000.00, being the assessed value of the vehicle. It is aggrieved by the said condition that this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed. The petitioner contends that the above condition is onerous in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shihab etc. and another v. State of Kerala and another,[2016 (4) KHC 183]. and this Court in Muhamed Ali v. State of Kerala and Others[2025 Supreme (Online) ( Ker) 39722].

(2.) I have heard Sri. Sahal Shajahan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in Shihab's case1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue, where the seized vehicle was used for transporting river sand from the forest. After examining the scope of Sec. 53 of the Kerala Forest Act, it has been held that the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the granting of the interim custody of a vehicle is onerous. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Thomas K.B.,[2018 (1) KHC 634] wherein this Court has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan,[2000 KHC 1315] and has held that ratio in Shihab's case1 governs cases of the instant nature in light of Sec. 53 of the Kerala Forest Act.