Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2100-2101/2017

STATE OF KERALA              Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

A.A. ALI                          Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No.2601 of 2017 and Crl.M.C. No.2231 of

2017,  the State of Kerala has preferred this appeal.

2. The issue pertains to an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III,

Thrissur  on an application filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.”)

3. The  vehicle  (Tata  Hitachi  Model  EX  200  Hydraulic  Excavator)  under  the

custody  of  the  Court  was  sought  to  be  released  by  the  respondent  -  a  contractor

engaged for the purpose of widening the National Highway.

: 2 :

4. The learned Magistrate by order dated  20th February 2017  permitted the release

of the vehicle  on furnishing of security by a self-bond for Rs.40,00,000/- together

with two solvent sureties for the like sum and also on producing a FD/bank guarantee

of the alleged loss caused to the Government building which was demolished for the

purpose of widening the National Highway.  

5. The respondent challenged the order of the Magistrate before the High Court.

The  High  Court  after  referring  to  various  decisions  passed  an  order  deleting  the

direction in the order of the Magistrate requiring submission of bank guarantee for the

alleged loss to the Forest Department.

6. While issuing notice on 1.12.2017, this petition was ordered to be tagged with

Criminal Appeal No.925/2017.   

By order dated 06.04.2018, leave granted in Criminal Appeal No.925/2017 was

revoked and the special leave petition was dismissed.

7. Be that  as  it  may,  in  the facts  of  the present  case,  it  may be seen that  the

respondent was engaged as a contractor by the National Highway Authority.  In the

process of the work, as per the direction given by his superior officers , the  building

was demolished for the purpose of National Highway development.  The application

filed by the respondent was for release of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C.   In

our view, the High Court is justified in holding that the bank guarantee for the alleged

loss need not be insisted for releasing a vehicle involved in the process.

: 3 :

The learned Magistrate is directed to release the vehicle without insisting the

condition regarding bank guarantee.

 In view of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed.

……………………………., J.                        (KURIAN JOSEPH)

……………………………., J.                                  (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

New Delhi; August 14, 2018