Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel

for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.2.

The petitioner filed this petition under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short,

'Cr.P.C') praying to quash order dated 19.02.2022 passed

by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

- 3 -

Raichur, with regard to condition No.5 and consequently,

restored the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by learned

Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur in Crime No.3/2022

of Sindanur Traffic P.S., for release of lorry bearing

registration No.AP-16/TY-6723.

3.

On the strength of complaint filed by one

Mahammed Iqbal, the case has been registered in Crime

No.3/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 279,

337, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 185, 146, 196, 3, 181,

129, 177 of IMV Act 1988. The Investigating Officer,

during the course of investigation seized the aforesaid

lorry and reported the seizer of vehicle to learned

Jurisdictional

Magistrate.

In

turn,

the

R.C.

owner

(respondent-1) filed an application under section 457 of

Cr.P.C., for release of vehicle, in turn the learned Prl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur ordered to release the interim

custody of the seized vehicle by furnishing cash surety of

Rs.15,00,000/- or Bank Guarantee of Rs.15,00,000/- or

creating

charge

over

the

immovable

property

of

- 4 -

Rs.15,00,000/- condition No.5 of the said order is in

compliance of the rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicle

Rules 2018.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of learned Prl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, respondent No.1 preferred

Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2022 before the learned II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur and sought

for modification of the condition No.5 of the aforesaid

order. In turn, the Revisional Court allowed the revision

and modified condition No.5, with a condition that,

respondent No.1 to execute the personal indemnity bond

for Rs.15,00,000/- and a surety for likesum.

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of Revisional

Court, present petitioner - Son of deceased filed this

petition contending that, order passed by learned Prl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur was correct and order passed

by the Revisional Court is not in accordance with law and

the Revisional Court has not assigned any valid reasons to

- 5 -

modify the order passed by Trial Court. Hence, prayed to

allow the petition.

6.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 justify the

order of the Revisional Court on the premises that, the

vehicle has no any insurance coverage and there is

prosecution in terms of Section 232-G of Karnataka Motor

Vehicle Rules 2018.

7.

On perusal of the material available on record,

there is no dispute that, the vehicle in question has been

seized, it had no insurance as on the date of accident, and

it belongs to respondent No.1, thus the trial Court order to

release the interim custody of seized lorry in favour of

respondent No.1.

8.

Admittedly, the seized vehicle has no insurance

coverage as on the date of accident. Therefore, the trial

Court justify in invoking rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor

Vehicle Rules 2018 and order to offer sufficient surety to

the satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation, that

may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such

- 6 -

accident. The object of this rule is to protect the interest

of the claimants in the claim petition to satisfy the award,

where there is no insurance policy to the vehicle. In order

to direct the owners of the vehicle, for deposit an amount,

for release of vehicle to the interim custody, even in terms

of rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules 2018, the

Court would have to take into consideration the probable

value of the vehicle and the amount of security cannot be

randomly fixed without any basis.

9.

In the instant case, the seized vehicle is truck

and as per the R.C. book it is 2011 make. As on the date

of seizer, the vehicle has completed in all 11 years. As per

the meaning of suf