Kerala High Court Removes Costly Bank Guarantee Condition, Says Sand Transport Case Doesn't Justify Harsh Measures

By Vivek G. • December 3, 2025

Shijo Mon Joseph vs State of Kerala & Another, Kerala High Court removes onerous ₹3 lakh bank guarantee in sand transport case, ruling that Kerala law allows vehicle release on simple bond, not guarantee.

In a brief but lively hearing on Friday, the Kerala High Court set aside a condition that required a lorry owner from Pathanamthitta to furnish a ₹3 lakh bank guarantee for the interim release of his seized vehicle. The court’s order, delivered by Justice C.S. Dias, came as a relief to petitioner Shijo Mon Joseph, whose lorry had been seized over allegations of illegal sand transportation.

हिंदी में पढ़ें

Background

The case began earlier this year when forest officials at Mukkuzhy Forest Station seized Joseph’s vehicle, accusing him of transporting river sand from a forest area-an offence under Sections 27 and 52 of the Kerala Forest Act. When Joseph approached the Judicial Magistrate at Kanjirappally seeking temporary custody, the court allowed it but only after insisting on a bank guarantee equal to the assessed value of the vehicle.

Read also: Madras High Court Directs Temple to Light Karthigai Deepam at Thirupparankundram Deepathoon, Citing Century-Old Property Rights & Tamil

This condition, the petitioner argued, was nearly impossible for him to meet. His counsel leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shihab v. State of Kerala, where a similar bank guarantee requirement had been struck down as “onerous.”

Court’s Observations

Justice Dias spent considerable time comparing the two legal frameworks-the Kerala Forest Act and its Karnataka counterpart-and the “subtle but crucial distinctions” between them. He noted that the Karnataka Act expressly requires a bank guarantee for the interim release of vehicles seized in timber offences, while the Kerala law carries no such mandate.

“The bench observed, ‘In the absence of a statutory requirement, imposing a bank guarantee-particularly in a case involving sand-becomes excessive and unjustifiable.’”

Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle

A key point in the judgment was the nature of the seized material. Sand, the judge pointed out, is not listed under Section 61A, the provision that permits the confiscation of vehicles involved in offences relating to government property like timber or ivory. Since sand doesn’t fall in that category, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation at all.

Justice Dias also remarked that Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act clearly allows release of a seized vehicle on a simple bond, and nothing more. He added that previous Kerala High Court rulings that seemed to favour a stricter approach were based on different fact situations or without addressing the legal distinctions highlighted in Shihab.

“When the law permits release on bond, adding a bank guarantee effectively penalises the petitioner before trial,” the court noted during the hearing.

Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313

Decision

Holding that the bank guarantee requirement was “onerous and liable to be interfered with,” the High Court set aside Condition No.1 of the Magistrate’s order. The Court then directed forest officials to hand over the vehicle to Joseph after he complies with the remaining conditions numbered 2 to 8-none of which involve financial guarantees.

The order concluded by invoking the Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), allowing the petition and clearing the final hurdle standing between the lorry owner and his vehicle.

Case Title: Shijo Mon Joseph vs State of Kerala & Another

Case Number: Crl.MC No. 9009 of 2025

Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Case (seizure of vehicle under Kerala Forest Act)

Decision Date: 21 November 2025

Recommended