Absence of insurance does not preclude vehicle release; courts must consider requiring sufficient security to ensure compensation claims as per applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner challenging the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 whereby the vehicle in question owned by him was not released in his favour having been involved in an accident with registration of G.R. Case No.101 of 2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur, Rayagada.

2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in respect of the seized vehicle (No.OD-10-F-8237) involved in the aforesaid case registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC which was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur by order dated 9^th September, 2021 under Annexue-1 on the ground that the vehicle was having no valid insurance against 3^rd party risks citing Rule 6 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accident Claims Tribunal) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Being aggrieved, the petitioner then approached the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Criminal Revision No.04 of 2021 which was disposed of by order dated 9^th December, 2021 vide Annexure-2 confirming the order of rejection. While dismissing the revision, the learned Sessions Court concluded that the alleged vehicle since was not insured as on the date of accident, it cannot be released in view of Rule 6 (supra) and decision of this Court in Ramakrushna Mahasuar Vrs. State of Odisha reported (2021) 81 OCR 635. So to say, the learned courts below declined to release the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized vehicle should have been handed over to the custody of the petitioner in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules accepting security from him. According to Mr. Mishra, in so far as Rule 6 is concerned, it only demands security in absence of insurance coverage. An order dated 13^th December, 2021 in CRLMC No.2040 and two other cases (Nabaratna @ Nabaratan Agrawal Vrs. State of Odisha etc.) is cited by Mr. Mishra by contending that the learned courts below could have asked for security in terms of Rule 6 . Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC, on the other hand, submitted that since the vehicle was not validly insured, the courts below rightly rejected prayer for its release in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 cannot be faulted with and disturbed.

4. Admittedly, the learned courts below did not demand any security from the petitioner and simply rejected release of the vehicle in view of Rule 6 of the Rules and by referring to the decision in Ramakrushna Mahasuar (supra). Whether the courts below rightly refused release of the seized vehicle? Whether there has been due compliance of Rule 6 of the Rules while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for taking custody of the seized vehicle moved as per Section 457 Cr.P.C?

5. The contention of the petitioner that the payment for renewal of insurance was made on 4^th April, 2021 and hence, the coverage should be with effect from 5th April, 2021 cannot be entertained as it was never disputed before. That apart, such a question cannot also be a subject matter of adjudication in the present proceeding. When there was no insurance coverage when the vehicle met with an accident, whether the petitioner was entitled to its release and on what condition. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision in Nabaratna @ Nabaratan Agrawal (supra), the petitioner could be directed to furnish security in terms of Rue 6 or to the extent