This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order in CMP No.1265/2014 to the extent objected passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Attingal under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle with Registration No:KL 07 BJ 4530 and it was seized in connection with the investigation of the Crime No.226/2012 of the Mangalapuram Police Station on the basis of the orders of the learned Magistrate passed on the application filed by the Investigating Officer. Later, the petitioner filed Criminal M.P. 1265/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Attingal for interim custody of the vehicle. Learned Magistrate allowed the application as per Annexure A4 order with conditions inter alia that the petitioner has to produce bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of two years and if the case is not disposed of within that period, to renew the same for another period of two years . This condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no crime has been committed involving the vehicle which has been seized. Further the case of the prosecution was that the petitioner was working as a Manger in a concern owned by the de facto complainant and when he left the employment, he had taken certain articles belonging to the de facto complainant and started another shop using those funds, thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Sections 381, 406, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, this vehicle was also purchased using the amount fetched by committing the crime. In fact he had purchased the vehicle by taking loan from the bank and he had produced documents to prove this fact as well. There is no necessity to furnish bank guarantee. Further the value of the vehicle is less than 5,00,000/- because it is six years old and if depreciation is calculated, the value of the vehicle will be much less, as it was purchased by paying an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- even at that time.
5. On the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the investigation is in the preliminary stage and there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the court below.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by de facto complainant, Crime No. 226/2012 of Mangalapuram Police Station was registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Sections 406, 420, 381 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle was seized by the investigating officer after getting an order from the court evidenced by Annexure A2. Admittedly there was no crime committed involving the vehicle as such. But the case of the prosecution was that the accused had purchased the vehicle by using the funds which he obtained by committing the alleged crime. So for the purpose of protecting the property, there is no necessity to direct the party to furnish bank guarantee as such. Further the petitioner had produced some documents to show that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2008. The vehicle was purchased in the year 2013 by taking loan and the vehicle was of the year 2008. However, I am not at this stage in going to the question as to whether the vehicle was purchased by using the amount obtained by the petitioner by misappropriating the alleged stolen articles etc. as it is a matter for evidence. Further considering the fact that the vehicle is of the year 2008, and the loan amount was only 3,93,907./- The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- fixed by the court below for bank guarantee also appears to be the higher side. However, instead of directing the party to furnish the bank guarantee directing the party to execute a bond for the value of the vehicle with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the court and also getting assurance from the petitioner that he will not sell the vehicle or alienate the vehicle or make any alteration of the vehicle without the consent of the court will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice as far as the petitioner and the prosecution is concerned. So the condition imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- is set aside and the same is modified as follows:
The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for Rs.3,00,000/- instead of 2,50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Attingal. Apart from conditions 3 to 5, the petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he will not sell or encumber or make any modification in the vehicle without getting permission from the concerned court till the disposal of the case.
With the above modification and the conditions imposed, the petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE MJL