Yousuf M.A v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Haripal
Judgment Date: 2022-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; the vehicle is released to the petitioner in interim custody on the specified terms: produce documents, execute a bond for Rs. 10,00,000 with two solvent sureties, produce the vehicle as and when necessary, refrain from alienating or altering the vehicle, maintain it, and comply with all statutory duties; the car’s custody shall be with the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; interim custody of vehicle granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Yousuf M.A

Respondents

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam, Idukki District
Station House Officer, Adimali Police Station
State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Liffy P. Francis

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sreeja V. (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 5642 of 2021) disposed by a single judge of the Kerala High Court on 18 January 2022. The petitioner, Yusuf M.A., is the registered owner of car KL-41-L-4961. He seeks quashing of an interim custody order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adimaly, which had refused to grant him interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with Crime No. 1414/2020 of Adimaly Police Station. The underlying incident allegedly occurred on 07/12/2020 when the petitioner and three companions formed part of a trip to Tamil Nadu for treatment of Sakheesh, who died after a sequence of events including alleged drunkenness and a collision with a motorcycle. A crime under CrPC section 174 was registered; the car was seized and kept in custody pending investigation. The petitioner contends that the car is new and remaining in police custody devalues it; he undertakes to produce original documents, execute a bond for Rs. 10 lakh with two solvent sureties, and keep the vehicle in proper maintenance without alienating or changing its character or color. The court cites Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) to emphasize that idle police custody of vehicles is detrimental, and accordingly allows the petition, releasing the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the enumerated conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 174 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Idle custody of vehicles by police should be avoided (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the motor vehicle is a new car and has remained in police custody since 10.12.2020; prolonged detention causes loss of value and utility. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation, produce original documents, furnish a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two solvent sureties, ensure custody of the vehicle, maintain vehicle and taxes, and refrain from any alienation or change in its character or color. He prays for interim custody release on these conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Sakheesh and the vehicle's involvement in the sequence of events; the car remains part of the investigation and cannot be released in interim custody. The Sub Divisional Magistrate’s dismissal was based on the ongoing inquiry and the need to preserve evidentiary material. The court must ensure that the vehicle’s custody does not prejudice the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State Of Gujarat	AIR 2003 SC 638	Positive	Cited to emphasize that idle custody of vehicles by police is undesirable, guiding the court to release the vehicle to the petitioner with conditions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **CRL.MC NO. 5642 OF 2021** **(CRIME NO. 1414/2020 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT)** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **YOUSUF M.A** **AGED 45 YEARS** **S/O. M.C.ALIYAR, MURINGASSERY HOUSE, EDATHALA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-683561. BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685613.** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,** - **POLICE STATION, ADIMALI, PIN-685613.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682018.** **SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No. 5642 of 2021 2 ## **ORDER** Petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Etiga car bearing registration No. KL-41-L-4961. On 07.12.2021 the petitioner and three of his friends proceeded to Poosarigoundanpetty, near Cumbum in Tamil Nadu on the guise of taking some treatment from an ingenious doctor, to treat the dislocated hand of the deceased. They started from Chunangamveli in Aluva on 07.12.2020. On the way, the petitioner says that deceased Sakheesh alighted from the vehicle and proceeded to some other direction and at that time he was hit by a motorcycle. Thereafter it is claimed that the petitioner and others took him to Morning Star hospital at Adimaly where he was found dead. On the basis of the statement given by the son of Sakheesh Annexure A2 Crime 1414 of 2020 of Adimaly police station was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and during the course of investigation, the vehicle was seized by the Crl.M.C No. 5642 of 2021 3 police. Then the petitioner moved Annexure-A3 petition for interim custody of the vehicle before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After obtaining Annexure-A4 report by Annexure-A5 order the Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing Annexure-A5 order. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 3. No doubt that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of the said Sakheesh. The annexureA4 report indicates that the petitioner and the deceased Sakheesh and others had proceeded to Tamil Nadu under the guise of taking treatment for Sakheesh at Poosarigoundanpetty, near Cumbum in Tamil Nadu. On the way, they drunk heavily and near Cumbum an unknown person also joined them for showing them the way to the Crl.M.C No. 5642 of 2021 4 hospital. Near Ugrakaliyamman Kovil, KK Petty, Sakheesh and the stranger got down from the car for urinating. At that time they entered into a fight and then the car moved ahead. Later, they went back. According to Annexure A4 report, seeing the car Sakheesh crossed the road and at that time one bike hit him and he fell down. He was taken in the car and they proceeded to consult the indigenous doctor. All the while Sakheesh was sleeping in the car. Thinking that he is under the influence of alcohol, the doctor did not treat him. They took him back to Adimaly and took him to the hospital where he was found dead. The crime was registered on the basis of the information furnished by the son of Sakheesh. 4. It is evident from the report that the car was taken into custody during the course of the investigation and it was subjected to scientific examination and incriminating evidence collected from the car by the scientific Officer Crl.M.C No. 5642 of 2021 5 was handed over to the Investigating Officer in a sealed cover on 14.12.2020. 5. The report also indicates that a crime has been registered in Rayappanpetty police station in Theni district in Tamil Nadu. After verifying Annexure-A4 report the 3rd respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application for interim custody of the vehicle. 6. The learned counsel submits that it is a new car, it was in the custody of the police from 10.12.2020 onwards. Later the car was given to the custody of the petitioner on 22.02.2021 but was again taken back on 27.02.2021, it is being detained in police custody unnecessarily; if the vehicle is allowed to be retained in custody it would be loosing its value and utility. The learned counsel undertook that if the vehicle is required for any purpose either for the purpose of investigation by Adimaly police or by the Rayappanpetty police, he is prepared to produce, as and Crl.M.C No. 5642 of 2021 6 when necessary. 7. From the Annexure-A4 report it is clear that the vehicle was subjected to scientific examination by the Scientific Officer Idukki. In fact, keeping a vehicle idle in the custody of the police has been taken exception by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State Of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638].** From 10.12.2020 onwards the vehicle is remaining in the custody of the police. That means, for more than 13 months have passed and it is not in the interest of anyone to keep such a motor vehicle in custody idle, exposed to sun and shower, for long. Therefore it is only appropriate that the vehicle be released to the custody of the petitioner, the registered owner, on the following conditions:- (i) He shall produce the original documents and appraise the Sub Divisional Magistrate his entitlement to get interim custody of the vehicle; Crl.M.C No. 5642 of 2021 7 (ii) He shall execute a bond for Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate; - (iii) He shall produce the vehicle as and when necessary; - (iv) He shall not alienate or transfer possession of the vehicle; he shall not change its character or colour etc, during the pendency of the proceedings; - (v) He shall keep the vehicle in proper maintenance, remitting tax, insurance premium etc.; - (vi) He shall not use the vehicle for any unlawful purpose. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above. **Sd/-** **K. HARIPAL JUDGE** RMV/18/01/2022 8 **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5642/2021** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|| |---|---| |**Annexure A1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE CAR OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEARING REG. NO.KL-41-L-4961.**| |**Annexure A2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1414/2020 BY ADIMALI PS.**| |**Annexure A3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**Annexure A4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.2021.**| |**Annexure A5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.8.2021.**| **TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE**