STATE OF KERALA Vs. THOMAS K.B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it mandatory on the part of the court to insist for bank guarantee or cash security for the value of the vehicle involved in an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to be released under Section 451 Cr.P.C., is the short question that arises for consideration in these matters?

(2.) The car belonged to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6534 of 2017 in O.R.No.5/2017 of the Mukkuzhy Forest Station was allegedly involved in transporting elephant tusks. According to the petitioner in the Crl.M.P., who is the respondent herein, one of his friends wanted his car for family use for a day. He willingly parted with the car and handed it over to his friend. The next day the car was returned. Subsequently, Forest Officials came to the house of the said petitioner and took away the car by stating that the person to whom the car was given had made use of the car for transporting elephant tusks. The car was seized on 12.10.2017.

(3.) The petitioner being the registered owner approached the court below with the said Crl.M.P., for getting the car released to his custody, pending conclusion of trial, under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate heard the respondent herein as well as the petitioner and passed Annexure AV order, the operative portion of which is as follows: