Kerala High Court
Vyshak vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
CRL.MC NO. 11191 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 11191 OF 2023
CRIME NO.201/2022 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 3721/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:
VYSHAK
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SIVARAMAN, JAGAMTHARA THENARI P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678622
BY ADVS.
T.K.SANDEEP
SWETHA R.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.C.ASHI (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 11191 OF 2023
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
===========================
Crl.M.C.No.11191 of 2023
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February 2024
ORDER
Petitioner challenges the order dated 05.07.2023 in
Crl.M.P.No.3721/2023 in Crime No.201/2022 of Kongad Police Station,
Palakkad District.
2. According to the prosecution, on 17.06.2022, the accused had, in
furtherance of the common intention, blocked a Hyundai Creta car, in which
the defacto complainant was travelling and being armed with iron rods
committed dacoity by robbing the car worth Rs.11 lakhs and cash of Rs.4
Crores apart from three mobile phones.
3. The mobile phone in the possession of the 4 th accused was seized
during investigation and produced before the court. Petitioner filed an
application seeking interim custody of the phone, stating that he is the owner
with the sim card in it and the same is not required for investigation. In
support of his contention, petitioner produced the copy of the invoice as well.
However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application, noticing that the
proceeds of the crime was used for purchasing the mobile phone.
4. I have heard Adv.T.K.Sandeep, learned Counsel for the petitioner
as well as Sri.M.C.Ashi, learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the mobile phone is a
material object to be produced in the case and therefore, it cannot be
released. The prosecution case as seen from the impugned order is that the
CRL.MC NO. 11191 OF 2023
mobile phone was purchased using the proceeds of the crime and therefore,
releasing the said phone to the accused would prejudice the prosecution
case.
6. Having considered the submissions made across the Bar and on a
perusal of the impugned order, I find no reason or perversity in the impugned
order. The mobile phone can be a material object in the case against the
accused. The investigation has not yet been completed as well. If the mobile
phone is a material object in the crime, releasing it on interim custody to the
petitioner is not proper. However, if in case, after completion of
investigation, the mobile phone is not required as a material object,
petitioner will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court through an
appropriate application.
The Crl.MC is dismissed, subject to the above observation.
sd/
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jm/
CRL.MC NO. 11191 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11191/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE OF THE MOBILE PHONE
DATED 19.06.2022
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IN CMP
3721/2023 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE-II PALAKKAD.
