The petitioner herein is a nationalised bank represented by its manager. The bank is aggrieved by a condition imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikara for release of a vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C., as per order dated 10.10.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.5007/2014. The rival claim made by the 3rd respondent herein for the vehicle was disallowed by the court below. The vehicle involved in the crime was ordered to be released to the petitioner on certain conditions. The second condition is that the petitioner shall not alienate, encumber or otherwise dispose of the said vehicle until further orders. The third condition is that the bank shall produce the vehicle before the court as and when required. The offences involved in the crime are under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. Prosecution case is that the accused obtained job in an Engineering College by forging some documents including a certificate showing that he has 'Doctorate'. Later, he obtained a salary certificate from the said institution, and by making use of this certificate he Crl.M.C. No. 7145 of 2014 2 obtained loan from different banks and purchased vehicle under hypothecation agreement. The vehicle was seized during investigation. The petitioner approached the court below for interim custody of the vehicle, and of course it was rightly released. But the bank is really aggrieved by the condition, that the bank shall not alienate, or encumber the vehicle and the bank shall produce the vehicle as and when required. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that there is no direct nexus between the purchase of the vehicle by the accused under hypothecation agreement from the bank, and the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. It is submitted that there is a civil proceeding before the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara wherein claims and rival claims on the said vehicle are involved. Subject to adjudication in the civil proceeding, the orders of the trial court releasing the vehicle to the petitioner can be made absolute. But the objectionable condition will have to be set aside, because it is a vehicle covered by hypothecation agreement, and the bank will have to proceed to realise the amount due from the accused, of course, subject to the civil claim in the civil court. In the circumstance of the case, I do not find the necessity of the Crl.M.C. No. 7145 of 2014 3 condition preventing alienation of the property because the bank will have to proceed for realisation of the amount due, and in such process the bank may even have to proceed against the vehicle. Such a condition imposed by the court below will definitely stand in the way of enforcement of the right of the bank under the hypothecation agreement. Even otherwise, the condition is not necessary because investigation in the crime can independently proceed when the alleged crime does not have any direct nexus with the hypothecation agreement.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The objectionable condition imposed by the court below as per order dated 10.10.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.5007/2014, that the petitioner shall not alienate or otherwise dispose of the vehicle, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the third condition imposed by the court will also stand quashed. The first condition directing execution of bond will stand modified, that the bank shall execute a bond for the amount to the satisfaction of the court, with one surety.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd