Court affirmed the necessity of valid insurance before vehicle release post-accident, modifying conditions for custody accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIASTUESDAY, THE 10THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026CRIME NO.945/2024 OF Pandalam Police Station, PathanamthittaAGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2024 IN CRMP NO.3552 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOORPETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SHAJIMON AGED 48 YEARS PANDAKASALA HOUSE, VAYAKKAL P.O, VALAKAM, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691532 BY ADVS.

SHRI.ARJUN S.

SHRI.AZEEM HASSAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICERPANDALAM POLICE STATION, OPPOSITE POST OFFICE,PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689501PP.SRI. SANAL P. RAJTHIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 24-G-2100, which is involved in Crime No.945/2024 registered by the Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta, 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 ( BNS ) and Section 146 read with Section

196 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( M.V. Act.

2. Claiming interim custody of the above vehicle, the petitioner filed CMP No.3552/2024 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor (Trial Court) under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By the impugned Annexure 3 order, the learned Magistrate has granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions. As per condition No.1 in Annexure 3 order, the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.3,20,000/- to get the vehicle released. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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 condition No.1 in Annexure 3 order, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,20,000/- is onerous and unjustifiable. There is no provision under the BNSS or the MV Act, directing the above course. Therefore, condition No.1 may be quashed.

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