The Magistrate's imposition of security conditions for vehicle release, contingent on insurance coverage compliance, is justified under applicable regulations.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.10726 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 25 R 3047, which is involved in Crime No.568/2025 registered by the Anchal Police Station against the driver of the vehicle for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 281 , 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 146 read with Section 196 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act .

2. Claiming interim custody of the above vehicle, the petitioner filed CMP No.3877/2025 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur (Trial Court) under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By the impugned Annexure A4 order, the learned Magistrate has ordered interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs.6,40,000/- as cash security or in the alternative provide a bank guarantee for Rs.6,40,000/-. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the direction in Annexure-A4 order ordering the petitioner should furnish cash security or bank guarantee towards the value of the vehicle is onerous and unjustifiable.

5. The above submission is refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor, who submits that the petitioner’s vehicle did not have a third party insurance at the time of accident. It is keeping in mind the said aspect, Rule 391 A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘Rules’, in short) and the law laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. Sanith Jan ( 2023 (3) KLT 319 ) that the learned Magistrate has imposed the said condition. Therefore, the said condition cannot be said to be onerous.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s vehicle did not have a valid insurance certificate at the time of the accident. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to Rule 391A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 , which reads as follows:

“Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.-- (1) No Court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of owner or when the owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when the owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance mentioned in sub-rule (1), or the owner fails to furnish sufficient security as provided in sub-rule (1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident”.

7. Interpreting the above Rule in Sanith Jan’s (supra)

case this Cou