Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

By order dated 18.9.2012 ten days time was allowed to the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions or to file counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit could be filed. However, considering that there is no factual controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally disposed off at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner aggrieved by few onerous conditions put by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in his vehicle release order dated 4.8.2012 passed in Case Crime No. 458 of 2012, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, district Pilibhit, has filed this writ petition. The conditions were also affirmed by the revisional Court vide order dated 16.8.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2012.

3. By the order dated 4.8.2012 the Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motorcycle with registration No. U.P.26 L-1077 was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner, who is the registered owner thereof, on certain conditions, apart from others, that he would submit personal bond of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with two sureties of the like amount and shall further deposit security of Rs. 2,00,000/- in compliance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 203-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) inasmuch as the vehicle was involved in an accident and was not validly insured for third party risks, on the date of the accident.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid conditions, as imposed, for release of the Motor-cycle are onerous and arbitrary and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 203-B of the Rules was not even applicable as it applies to a case where death or permanent disablement is caused on account of the accident. It has further been submitted that no finding has been recorded by the Court below that a claim has been set up before, or awarded by, any Court or tribunal, accordingly, imposition of such onerous condition would not only render the release order nugatory but would also deprive the petitioner of his statutory right to seek for release of the vehicle, pending inquiry or trial.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the conditions imposed by the Court below were in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 203-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, as incorporated vide U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011, therefore, the conditions are legally justified. It has also been contended that the accident involving the motor-cycle had caused fracture to the victim, apart from other injuries, therefore, to secure his claim, the conditions cannot be said to be unjustified.

6. I have perused the orders impugned as also the record. A perusal of the order dated 4.8.2012, which has been affirmed by the revisional Court, goes to show that the aforesaid conditions were imposed by the Court below by placing reliance on sub-rule (3) of Rule 203-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, as inserted by U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. It would be useful to reproduce the Rule 203-B, which reads as under :

“203-B. Prohibition against release of vehicle.—(1) No vehicle, involved in any accident, shall be released by investigating Police Officer or any Police Officer superior to him unless a release order is passed, by the Court having jurisdiction.

(2) No vehicle, involved in any accident shall be released by the Judicial Magistrate, having jurisdiction, unless the compliance of sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 203-A is ensured from the investigating Police Officer and duly attested copies of Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate, Route Permit, Fitness Certificate of vehicle as the case may be and driving license of the driver who was driving at the time of