##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15905]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1556/2026

Prem Raj S/o Mehta Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhatiyo Ki

Dhani Chandaliya Ghewada Tehsil Osiya District Jodhpur ----Petitioner

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Vishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

07/04/2026

The present miscellaneous petition has been filed aggrieved

by the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balesar, in Case No. 166/2025, whereby the release of the petitioner’s vehicle has been made subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum

of ₹5,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter

pertains to an accident which resulted in the death of one person. It is contended that, as of date, no claim petition has been filed, nor has any liability been determined against the petitioner. Therefore, the imposition of a condition requiring deposit of a

bank guarantee is unjustified and premature.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied

upon the judgments of this Court in Moti Ram v. State of

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 07:30:18 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 10:36:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15905] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1556/2026] Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 5600/2025) and Roopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.

270/2026), wherein similar conditions were set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

petition and submitted that, in view of the specific amendments introduced in the year 2019 to the Motor Vehicles framework, particularly the insertion of Rule 10.2A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, a vehicle involved in an accident cannot be released without furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court

in Hetram v. State of Rajasthan (SBCRLMP N. 1502/2022)

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused

the impugned order as well as the judgments cited at the Bar. It is an admitted position that the vehicle in question was involved in

an accident resulting in the death of one person.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash v. National

Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 607, has categorically held that in cases where a vehicle is not insured, the owner must be directed to furnish security or deposit an amount sufficient to satisfy any award that may ultimately be passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle. The Apex Court further directed the appropriate Governments to make necessary

amendments in this regard.

Pursuant thereto, the State Government amended the

relevant rules, and Rule 10.2A was inserted in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, which mandates that no vehicle

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 07:30:18 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 10:36:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15905] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1556/2026] involved in such an accident shall be released without the owner furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to

meet any potential compensation liability.

In view of the aforesaid statutory mandate, this Court, in

Hetram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that claimants are not left high and dry and that imposition of security is mandatory in nature. It appears that in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, namely Moti Ram (supra) and Roopa Ram (supra), the aforesaid amendments were not brought to the notice of the Court, and thus, the same could not be considered. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed its order relying solely on the judgment in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court had merely made a suggestion for amendment, and no directions had been issued to the Courts to require a bank guarantee or FDR