The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient security for the release of a motor vehicle involved in an accident, as mandated by the Supreme Court judgment and the amended provision Rule 10.2A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - Instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), lays challenge to the order dated 31.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Parbatsar, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as "the Revisional Court"), whereby the order dated 27.11.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") has been affirmed in essence, albeit, with a minor modification.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane for the present purposes are that the petitioner's vehicle-Bus bearing Registration No. RJ-18-PA-7417 was seized, as it was involved in an accident which happened on 28.10.2020 and led to untimely death of one Kanaram and consequential FIR (being No. 193/2020, dated 28.10.2020) being registered at P.S. Chitava, District Nagaur against the driver of the vehicle.

3. The petitioner moved an application under Section 451 of the Code for release of the bus in question, which application was allowed by the learned trial Court with a condition of furnishing a Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs, besides usual conditions of release of a vehicle on supurdginama.

4. The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code, which though was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 31.03.2021, however, with a limited indulgence that requirement of furnishing Bank guarantee was reduced from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 8 lacs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that imposition of the condition of Bank guarantee is unconscionable and is violative of petitioner's right to carry on trade.

6. He argued that such condition is not supported by any law. Relying upon the judgment dated 06.04.2022 of this Court in Kalpesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 664/2022).

7. He argued that the Revisional Court has simply reduced the amount of Bank guarantee, without appreciating the core issue and ignoring that neither the amount of award nor the amount claimed by the claimant was before the Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the vehicle was got insured on 29.10.2020, whereas the accident took place on 28.10.2020, which shows that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was not insured.

10. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not challenged such finding; he has rather placed on record a copy of a cover note (Annex-3) which is in conformity with the finding recorded by the trial Court that on the date of accident the vehicle was not insured.

11. Such being the position, the liability, if any, arising out of the claim will have to be borne by the driver and owner of the vehicle. Such liability will have a charge over the vehicle in question (bus), as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinfra:-

"28. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf."

12. It is to be noted that in the case of Jai Prakash (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court had directed the Central/State Government to amend the applicable laws suitably. Accordingly, the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 have been ame