Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules | Amount Of Security For Release Of Seized Vehicle Can't Be Fixed Randomly: High Court

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that when asking for deposit of amount for release of seized vehicle to the interim custody of the owner under Rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, the Court has to take into consideration the probable value of the vehicle and the amount of security cannot be randomly fixed without any basis.

Petitioner Mustafa Rasoolanava had approached the Court questioning the order of the trial court passed on the application made by him under section 457 CrPC for release of his tractor. The trial court had ordered him to deposit cash of Rs.5,00,000 in court towards security and also to execute an indemnity bond of the like amount, for interim custody of the tractor, which was seized in an offence registered with the Dharwad Rural Police station under Sections 279, 283, 338, 304(A) of IPC.

The only contention raised by the petitioner was that there is no difficulty in offering the indemnity bond for amount of Rs.5,00,000 as ordered by the trial Court. However, the amount of Rs.5,00,000 is ordered to be deposited in terms of Rule 232G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules is on higher side.

Firstly the court rejected the contention of the prosecution that the petition challenging an interim order passed by the trial court is not maintainable. Relying on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ganesa Moorthy vs. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Kattumannarkoil (2019), the bench said “A revision petition against the order passed in terms of Section 451 of Cr.P.C., is maintainable.”

Noting that the seized vehicle has no insurance coverage and therefore, the trial Court is justified in invoking Rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and ordering to offer sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident, the bench said,

“The object of this rule is to protect the interest of the claimants in a claim petition to satisfy the award, where there is no insurance policy to the vehicle. While asking for deposit of the amount for release of the vehicle to the interim custody even in terms of Rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, the Court will have to take into consideration the probable value of the vehicle and the amount of security cannot be randomly fixed without any basis.”

In the present case the Court said the seized vehicle as is of 1997 model, i.e. more than 26 years old. Thus, if depreciation per year is calculated and taking into account the present condition of the seized vehicle, Court said it would be appropriate to modify the deposit to cash of Rs. 2 lakhs in addition to indemnity bond and surety bond for Rs.5 lakhs as ordered by trial Court.

Case Title: Mustafa s/o Maktumsab Rasoolanavar And The State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 100268 of 2023 (397-)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

Date of Order: 18-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Srinand A Pachhapure for petitioner.

HCGP Praveen Uppar for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order