M E BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one of the sureties who had executed a bond to secure the release of a vehicle by the claimant in an application for release of the vehicle. THE bond was for Rs.5 lakhs. THE petitioner allegedly produced the title deed before the learned Magistrate. THE learned Magistrate perused the same and directed that it be kept in the file. Later, the petitioner applied for release of the said title deed. THE learned Magistrate felt that there was no sufficient reason to direct release of the original title deed. Obviously the learned Magistrate appears to have felt that as security for the bond and to prove the solvency of the petitioner, the said document need not be returned to the petitioner. I find absolutely nothing wrong in the course adopted by the learned Magistrate. THE petitioner has no case that he requires the document for any specific purpose. If such purpose were specified and an application made, the learned Magistrate is, of course, bound to render a reasoned decision. THE learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner is afraid that his valuable title deed may be lost from court. THE petitioner can certainly apply to the learned Magistrate to keep the document in safe custody.

(2.) WITH the above observations, this Crl.M.C is, dismissed.