HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 523/2021

Jhanwarlal S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Sewag,

R/o Mundra Sewgon Ka Chowk Ratani Vyaso Ka Chowk, Bikaner.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Kunal Kalla for Mr. Kaushal

Gautam

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/10/2022

1.

By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order

dated 07.07.2021, passed by the learned Gram Nyayalaya,

Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") as affirmed by

the order dated 28.07.2021, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.5, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as "the

Revisional Court").

2.

The facts appertain are that the petitioner is the registered

owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-07-CA-0590,

which met with an accident and the same was seized by the police

authority.

3.

The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section

457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicle on

supurdginama before the learned trial Court.

(2 of 4)

[CRLW-523/2021]

4.

Petitioner's aforesaid application came to be disposed of by

the learned trial Court in the manner that petitioner was directed

to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.6,50,000/- in the form of FDR

for probable damages payable in relation to the deceased and

other three injured victims, as the vehicle was not insured. The

petitioner was directed to furnish supurdginama.

5.

Petitioner challenged the order dated 07.07.2021, passed by

the trial Court by way of filing revision.

6.

The order passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed by

the learned Revisional Court.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned

trial Court was not justified in imposing a condition of furnishing

the Bank guarantee/FDR and the vehicle ought to have been

released simply on furnishing supurdginama.

8.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

9.

Indisputably, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was not

having valid insurance cover at the time of accident. This being

the position, provisions of Rule 10.2A inserted as per the 2019

amendment brought in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990

shall be applicable.

10.

In the judgment of rendered in the case of Hetram Vs. State

of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1502/2022), this

Court has held as follows:

"13. It will not be out of place to reproduce the

amended provision Rule 10.2A, which reads as

follows:-

"10.2A. Prohibition against release of motor

vehicle involved in accident.- (1) No court shall

(3 of 4)

[CRLW-523/2021]

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 registered owner or when

the registered owner fails to furnish copy of

such insurance policy despite demand by

investigating police officer, unless and until the

registered 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 registered owner of the motor vehicle fails

to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance

mentioned 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 b