High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-11-16Dismissed

State represented by Forest Range Officer, Kasargode v. Iqbal K. s/o Umer B.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar, J.
Judgment Date: 2018-11-16
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018 stands dismissed. The High Court held that the Annexure-AIV conditions are more than sufficient for the release of the vehicle to the respondent under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and did not interfere with the lower court's order, effectively upholding release on bond under the stated terms.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State represented by Forest Range Officer, Kasargode

Respondents

Iqbal K. s/o Umer B.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shri Sandesh Raja K., Special Public Prosecutor (Forest)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. C.R. Saradamani, Sri T. Madhu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case challenges an interim release order in a wildlife offence matter. The Forest Range Officer, Kasaragod, on behalf of the State, seeks to overturn the Kasaragod C.J.M. order releasing the vehicle Reg. No. KL 59 G-8945 to the respondent, Iqbal K., without any deposit or bank guarantee. The vehicle was seized in Crime No. 10/2017 by the Forest Range Office for offences under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, punishable under Section 51, and under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, Section 27(1)(e)(iv). The allegations relate to the transport of 11 turtles and 3 antlers of Indian Sambar deer in the vehicle on 13 Oct 2017. The petitioner contends that offences are grave and the court below should have imposed financial safeguards before releasing the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The respondent relies on jurisprudence allowing release on bond under Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act and cites Supreme Court decisions such as Shihab, Madhukar Rao, and Thomas K.B. to argue that bond release is permissible and cash security is not mandatory, especially where the owner is not the accused. The High Court, after examining these precedents, finds that the respondent is not the accused and that Annexure AIV conditions are sufficient for release, hence dismissing the petition and upholding the lower court order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, s. 51Kerala Forest Act, 1961, s. 27(1)(e)(iv)Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure), 1973, s. 451Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, s. 50Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, s. 39(1)(d)Kerala Forest Act, 1961, s. 53

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bond-for-release under Section 53, Kerala Forest Act (bond for production of released property)
Magistrate's power to order interim release under Cr.P.C. s. 451 not affected by Wildlife Act amendments (Madhya Pradesh v. Madhukar Rao)
Release of seized vehicle without bank guarantee when owner is not the accused (Thomas K.B. doctrine)
Bond release can substitute for cash security in wildlife cases depending on circumstances

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that given the grave offences under the Wild Life Protection Act and the possible value of the seized property, the court below should have directed deposit or bank guarantee equal to the vehicle's value before release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. It relies on Section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act and related amendments to argue for safeguards, while also invoking established jurisprudence that supports bond-based release. It cites Shihab for bond release and Madhukar Rao to emphasize the continued vitality of interim release powers, and cites Thomas K.B. as indicating non-accused owners may be released without cash security.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent's counsel argues that Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act permits release on bond, particularly since the owner is not the accused. They rely on Shihab to justify bond-based release and on Thomas K.B. to support the absence of mandatory cash security. They contend the lower court's order should be upheld and no deposit is required, given the owner is not charged and the bond can ensure production of the vehicle if needed.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shihab etc. v. State of Kerala and another	2016 (4) KHC 183	Positive	Held that Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act allows release on bond for production of the released property, supporting bond-based release.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Madhukar Rao	2008 (1) KHC 706	Positive	Held that amendments to Section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act do not undermine the Magistrate's power to order interim release under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
State of Kerala v. Thomas K.B.	2018 (1) KLJ 213	Positive	Directed release of the vehicle without bank guarantee or deposit where the owner was not the accused; supports non-mandatory cash security under certain circumstances.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State represented by Forest Range Officer, Kasargode v. Iqbal K. s/o Umer B. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **FRIDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 4067/2017 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD DATED 20-01-2018** **CRIME NO. 10/2017 OF Kasaragod Forest Range Office , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **STATE REPRESENTED BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KASARGODE.** **BY ADV. SHRI SANDESH RAJA K, SPL.G.P. FOREST** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **IQBAL K. S/O.UMMER B., RESIDING AT MANIMOOLA, KOITHODE, BANDADKA, MANIMOOLA P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.T.MADHU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -2- ## **O R D E R** The respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 59 G-8945, which was seized by the Forest Range Officer in connection with crime No.OR-10 of 2017 registered for various sections of offences under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 punishable under Section 51 of the said Act and Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act 1961. 2. The respondent filed C.M.P. No.4067 of 2017 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. praying for releasing the above said vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 13.10.2017 ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -3- at about 4 p.m., the accused persons were arrested during the course of transportation of 11 numbers of turtles and 3 antlers of Indian Sambar deer in the above said vehicle. 4. The C.M.P. filed by the respondent was allowed by the court below as per Annexure - AIV. The court below did not direct the respondent to deposit any amount or furnish bank guarantee to release the vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent. Since the court below did not direct the respondent to deposit any amount or furnish bank guarantee, the petitioner filed this Crl.M.C. praying for setting aside Annexure-AIV order. 5. Heard. 6. The learned special Public Prosecutor has ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -4- submitted that since the offences alleged against the respondent are very grave offences, the court below was not justified in releasing the interim custody of the vehicle to the respondent without directing the respondent to deposit the amount or furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the vehicle. 7. The Apex Court in Shihab etc. v. State of Kerala and another [2016 (4) KHC 183] held that Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act empowers the Forest officer to release seized property on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released. In the said case, the Apex Court set aside the direction to deposit the cash security and ordered to release ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -5- the vehicle on accepting the bond. 8. The Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Madhukar Rao [2008 (1) KHC 706] held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the amendments made thereunder do not in any way affect the Magistrate's power to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code. It was further held by the Apex Court in Madhukar Rao (supra) that the provisions of Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 would come into play only after a Court of competent jurisdiction found that the accusation and the allegations made against the accused were true and the seized article was, as a matter of fact used in the commission of the offence. Whether the bank guarantee or deposit had to be insisted upon for releasing ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -6- the vehicle involved in an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in State of Kerala v. Thomas K.B. [2018 (1) KLJ 213]. The court in Thomas(supra) directed the release of the vehicle without furnishing bank guarantee or deposit as the owner therein was not the accused in the crime. 9. In this case also, the respondent is not an accused. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there should be a direction to deposit amount or furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the vehicle for the release of the vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent. 10. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am ## **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -7- satisfied that the conditions imposed by the court below as per Annexure-AIV are more than sufficient for the release of the vehicle to the respondent under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Consequently, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed. Dated this the 16[th] day of November 2018. sd **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** . dl/ **Crl.MC.No. 994 of 2018** -8- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE AI TRUE COPY OF THE FORM A1 OF OR NO.10/2017.** **ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI PAPERS.** **ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF THE CRLMP NO.4067/17 IN OR NO.10/2017. ANNEXURE AIV A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-012018 IN CRL.MP.NO.4067/2017.** **RESPONDENTS'S/S EXHIBITS:** **// True copy // PA to Judge**