ORDER : 1. An Enfield Bullet Motor Bike, registered in the name of the petitioner, met with an accident while her husband was riding the bike. Admittedly, the vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks. Crime No.473 of 2019 of the Mannar Police Station was consequently registered inter alia under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 2. The petitioner filed an application to get the vehicle released under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, placing reliance on Rule 391A of Kerala Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2018, held that the petitioner was not entitled to get the vehicle released. 3. The said order is under challenge. 4. Sri K.V. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained as Rule 391A will not operate as a blanket bar to release the vehicle. No specific reasons have been assigned, submits the learned counsel. He would further contend that that no serious bodily injuries were sustained by the injured and the motor bike being one having only a market value of Rs.60,000/-, the learned Magistrate ought to have released the bike by insisting upon reasonable security. 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted that the application was rightly rejected as the petitioner refused to furnish security. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 7. From the order impugned, it appears that the application for release of the vehicle was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was not covered by a policy of insurance and hence, Section 391A would act as an embargo. The assent or the failure of the petitioner to furnish sufficient security has not been mentioned in the order. It appears that the Court below proceeded on the premise that Rule 391A would operate as a bar for its release, if the vehicle is not insured against third party risks. 8. Rule 391A is extracted below for easy reference. The assent or the failure of the petitioner to furnish sufficient security has not been mentioned in the order. It appears that the Court below proceeded on the premise that Rule 391A would operate as a bar for its release, if the vehicle is not insured against third party risks. 8. Rule 391A is extracted below for easy reference. “391 A. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.- (1) No court shall 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 owner or when the owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the 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 the 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 be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.” 9. The Rule mandates that immediately after the accident involving death or bodily injury or damage to property, the owner of the vehicle is liable to produce the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of the owner on being demanded by the investigating officer. When he fails to do so, the learned Magistrate can insist upon the owner to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim instituted by the injured. When he fails to do so, the learned Magistrate can insist upon the owner to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim instituted by the injured. If he refuses to furnish security or furnish copy of the insurance, in the circumstances mentioned above, within a period of three months from the date of taking possession of the vehicle by the investigating officer, the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction will proceed to sell the vehicle in public auction. The sale proceeds will then be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area, within 15 days from the date of sale for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded or may be awarded in a case. 10. In view of the above, when a vehicle which is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks or when the owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy, the learned Magistrate is expected to call for a report from the competent officer in the Motor Vehicles Department to report on the market value of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle can then be asked to furnish security for the assessed value for releasing the vehicle in interim custody. The learned Magistrate may not be justified in assessing the amount of compensation that is likely to be passed by the Claims Tribunal and insisting upon the owner of the vehicle to deposit the said amount as Rule 391A contemplates only the sale of the vehicle in public auction for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded or may be awarded at a later stage. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. The learned Magistrate is directed to secure report from the competent officer of the Motor Vehicles Department and thereafter, call upon the petitioner to furnish security for the said amount and proceed accordingly. If she furnishes security, the vehicle shall be released by imposing conditions. On her failure, the learned Magistrate may proceed in terms of Rule (2) of Section 391A and sell the vehicle in public auction and the proceeds shall be deposited in the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. This petition is disposed of with the above directions.