[2026:RJ-JD:7195]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 983/2026 Shankar Lal Jat S/o Mahaveer Jat, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ranjeetpura, Pranhera, Ajmer Raj..

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

09/02/2026 By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS a challenge has been given to order dated 03.01.2026 and 20.01.2026, whereby the learned courts below while allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 BNSS for release of vehicle, ordered to release Truck No. RJ-01GC-1400, in favour of petitioner, who is registered owner of the vehicle in-question, however, imposed a condition of depositing bank guarantee of Rs.28 Lacs; a surety bond and a ‘superdignama’ of the like amount. The said order has been upheld by the learned revisional court vide order dated

20.01.2026.

Learned counsel argued that such onerous condition cannot be imposed as the same is not backed by any statute. The orders impugned being illegal and bad in the eye of law, deserves interfered with by this Court.

Counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in Moti Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5600/2025, decided on 13.08.2025). The order aforesaid reads as follows :-

“1. The instant petition invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred oppugning the order dated 25.06.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisional Court’), whereby the order dated 31.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) has been affirmed.

2. The facts appertain are that petitioner’s vehicle - pickup bearing registration No.RJ-37-GA-3951 met with an accident. An FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner for rash and negligent driving, punishable for the offences under Sections 281, 125(1) & 106(1) of the BNS.

3. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner moved an application under Section 503 of the BNSS and sought release of the subject vehicle on supurdaginama.

4. The trial Court, vide its order dated 31.05.2025, ordered the vehicle to be released on supurdaginama, however, subject to a condition that the petitioner will have to furnish bank guarantee/FDR of Rs.3,50,000/- apart from furnishing surety bond of Rs.3,50,000/- and an undertaking/supurdginama and surety bond in the like amount to the effect that he would bring the vehicle as and when required.

5. Against the order aforesaid passed by the trial Court on 31.05.2025, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was rejected by the Revisional Court while affirming the order dated 31.05.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the condition of requiring an owner of the vehicle/applicant to furnish a bank guarantee/FDR is illegal and the same is not backed by any statute.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the Courts below have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 and required the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for the purpose of securing the liability arising from claim of amount of compensation, if filed by the legal heirs of the victim.

8. Taking the Court through the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash (supra), learned counsel argued that Hon’ble the Supreme Court had simply given suggestion to the Parliament to amend the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 suitably so that victims of the vehicular accident are assured of reasonable compensation in case the vehicle is not insured.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner’s ve