[2025:RJ-JP:50285]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7957/2025 Vaibhav Jhankra S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Residence Of Nai Sadak Naya Baas, Near Shiv Mandir, Ashok Bhawan Churu ( Rajasthan). Presently Residing At Plot No.

22,maharana Pratap Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.D.K. Bhardwaj Mr.Sumit Sihay Mr.Kapil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

10/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Sikar in F.I.R. No.83/2025 registered at Police Station Ramgarh Sethan, District Sikar by which the application submitted by the petitioner for release of the vehicle has been allowed with the condition to furnish supurdaginama/ security of Rs.10,00,000/- along-with bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati bearing No.21/2025. The same was partly allowed vide impugned order dated 07.11.2025 and the order asking the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- has been modified and the petitioner has been directed to deposit bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/- and the remaining part of the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur has been remained intact.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident on 17.05.2025 and the same was found to be uninsured and subsequently, seized by the Police during the course of investigation pursuant to the above F.I.R. Thereafter, when an application was submitted by the petitioner for release of the aforesaid vehicle bearing No.RJ-19-UD-3747, the above onerous condition has been imposed directing the petitioner to deposit the bank guarantee along-with security amount for the supurdagi of the aforesaid vehicle. Counsel submits that the aforesaid condition has been put on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. M/s National Insurance Co. & Ors. while deciding Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11801-11804 of 2005

4. Counsel submits that even in the case of Jai Prakash (supra), the word ‘or’ has been used. The owner of uninsured vehicle is supposed to either furnish the security or deposit the bank guarantee for getting the vehicle on supurdagi. Counsel submits that the word ‘and’ has not been used by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash (supra). Hence, the Court below has misinterpreted the order/ direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash (supra). Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish the security of Rs.10,00,000/-, pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and hence, the order to the extent of depositing bank guarantee be deleted.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the vehicle bearing No.RJ-19-UD-3747 met with an accident and thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. No.83/2025 was registered at the Police Station Ramgarh Sethan, District Sikar and during the course of investigation, it was found that the vehicle was not insured, hence, the same was seized. Subsequently, when an application was submitted by the petitioner seeking supurdagi of the aforesaid vehicle, the application has been allowed. However, two conditions have been imposed in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court i