Invoking Bank Guarantee For Interim Release Of Vehicle Seized For Alleged Sand Transport 'Unjustifiable': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a condition, which required furnishing of bank guarantee to get interim custody of a vehicle that was alleged to be caught transporting river sand from forest, is onerous.Justice C.S. Dias observed that the Apex Court decision in Shihab etc. and another v. State of Kerala and another [2016 (4) KHC 183] holds the field when it comes to similar cases.The plea before the Court was preferred by the registered owner of a lorry that was seized by the Deputy Range Forest Officer in Pathanamthitta alleging that it was used to transport river sand from the forest in contravention of Sections 27(1) (e) (iv) & (v) and 52(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.The petitioner preferred a petition before the Magistrate having jurisdiction for interim custody and it was granted subject to conditions, one of which was that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lakhs, equivalent to the assessed value of the vehicle. Aggrieved, he has come before the High Court.While the petitioner relied on Shihab's case and the Kerala High Court judgments in Muhamed Ali v. State of Kerala (2025) and State of Kerala v. Thomas K.B. (2018), the respondents contended that State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan governs the field.Opposing the petitioner argued that Krishnan's case was decided in the context of the Karnataka Forest Act, which has a provision that expressly mandates the furnishing of bank guarantee for release, whereas a similar provision is absent in the Kerala law.It was also contended by the petitioner that only under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act is a confiscation proceeding mentioned and only then necessity of furnishing a bank guarantee arises. However, in the present case, what is alleged to have been transported is sand, which is not an article listed under the section.The Court referred to both Section 53 and Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act and found that since the good alleged to be transported is sand, which is not contemplated under Section 61A, the vehicle used for transport would not be liable for confiscation.Clarifying the position of law, the Court observed:“Shihab's case was rendered after Krishnan's case, but in a matter arising under the Kerala Forest Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on considering that the goods involved in the former case was sand and that Section 53 empowered the Ranger to release the vehicle on interim custody on bond, held that the condition to furnish a bank guarantee was onerous. The same view has been taken in Thomas's case, following the ratio in Shihab's case…In the present case, as the vehicle was used for allegedly transporting sand and Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act empowers the competent officer to grant interim custody of the vehicle on the owner executing a bond, I am convinced that the impugned condition to furnish a bank guarantee is onerous and unjustifiable. In such cases, the decision in Shihab's case rules the roost.”Thus, the Court allowed the plea and held that the condition requiring furnishment of bank guarantee was onerous going by Shihab's case. It set aside the condition imposed by the Magistrate and directed the Deputy Range Officer to grant interim custody expeditiously if the petitioner complies with the other conditions imposed.Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 9009 of 2025Case Title: Shijo Mon Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 789Counsel for the petitioner: Sahal Shajahan, Shajahan P.M.Counsel for the respondents: Nagaraj Narayanan – Special Public ProsecutorClick to Read/Download Judgment

Invoking Bank Guarantee For Interim Release Of Vehicle Seized For Alleged Sand Transport 'Unjustifiable': Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags