Kerala High Court
Abdul Majeed T.V vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
2025:KER:12059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1161 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1060/2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
IN CRMP NO.9 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT-II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
ABDUL MAJEED T.V
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O ALIKUTTY T.V, VALLIKKAD HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638
BY ADVS.
K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
BIBIN MATHEW
P.M.MATHEW
SONYMON ANTONY
AMARNATH R LAL
SANALDEV E.P.
AJMAL V. KARIM
AKHIL KRISHNAN A.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION,
WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673592
BY ADV. M.C. ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.1161 of 2025
2025:KER:12059
2
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025 Petitioner is the owner of a Maruti Suzuki Baleno car bearing registration No.KL-02-BE-9783, seized in crime No.1060 of 2024 registered at the Sulthanbathery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('the NDPS Act' for short), 1985.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, at about 12:25hrs on 17.02.2024, accused nos.1 to 3 were found in possession of 54.09 gms of MDMA while travelling from Bangalore. Though petitioner is not an accused in the crime, his application seeking interim custody of the vehicle stands rejected by Annexure-3 order. Aggrieved, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, insofar as the petitioner is the owner of the Crl.M.C. No.1161 of 2025 2025:KER:12059 3 vehicle and not an accused, court below ought to have allowed the prayer for interim custody. With regard to the findings in the impugned order that the petitioner must be aware of the activities of the 3 rd accused, a regular drug peddler, it is submitted that the petitioner is a businessman and is having no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that, till date, petitioner has not been served even with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Relying on the decision in Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam [2025 0 Supreme(SC) 35] it is contended that, even though the vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence and may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution case, such requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle on interim custody.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, if at all this Court decides to grant interim custody of the vehicle, that should be on stringent conditions. Crl.M.C. No.1161 of 2025
2025:KER:12059 4
5. Having heard both sides, this Court is of the opinion that, merely for the reason that the contraband was seized from the vehicle, interim custody need not be denied to its owner. Of course, grant of such custody would be subject to the procedure prescribed in Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In arriving at such conclusion, I am guided by the following observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph nos.26 to 28 of Bishwajit Dey (supra);
"26. If the respondent-State's interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management and staff of the private plan or bus or ship, the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over!
27. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet the Courts do not take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.
28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution's case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to Crl.M.C. No.1161 of 2025 2025:KER:12059 5 be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle."
In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of by quashing Annexure-3 order and directing the court below to reconsider Crl.M.P. No.9 of 2025 filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order thereon, adverting to the decisions of the Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey (supra) and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 KHC 535]. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within two weeks of production of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/13-2 Crl.M.C. No.1161 of 2025 2025:KER:12059 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1161/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE PARTICULARS OF MARUTI SUZUKI BALENO CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL 02 B.E 9783 ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1060/2024 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025 IN CRL.M.P NO. 9/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, WYANAD ANNEXURE-4 TRUE COPY OF THE CAR LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S CAR DATED 31.01.2025 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE