Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 568 (HP)

Manish Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-07

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner against the order dated 24.10.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2018, whereby order dated 19.07.2018, passed by learned trial Court was upheld, wherein application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle was allowed, subject to furnishing bank guarantee or deposit of Rs. 4,20,000/-. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, under Section 457 Cr. P.C. for release of vehicle No. HP-01K-4988, which was impounded by the Police in case FIR No. 98/2018, dated 04.05.2018, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. In the application, it has been prayed that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and has been financed with KCC Bank, Bajaura and the petitioner has to pay back the loan amount to the said bank. 3. Reply to the application has been filed, wherein it has been averred that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question and the police has no objection in case the vehicle is released to him. Further, it has been reported that the petitioner could not produce insurance certificate of the vehicle before the police. However, the applicant filed latest insurance certificate of the vehicle, wherein present insurance value of the vehicle was Rs. 4,20,000/-. 4. Learned Revision Court vide order dated 24.10.2018, upheld the order of learned trial Court, wherein application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle was allowed, however, subject to furnishing bank guarantee or deposit of Rs. 4,20,000/-. Hence the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned Courts below have committed illegality in asking only for deposit of the amount, because as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limiteds case, it should be security or cash deposit. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the impugned order suffers from no illegality, as the vehicle was not insured, so the well reasoned order passed by learned Court below needs no interference. 6. Heard. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the impugned order suffers from no illegality, as the vehicle was not insured, so the well reasoned order passed by learned Court below needs no interference. 6. Heard. This Court has taken into consideration the fact that the vehicle has been alleged to have met with an accident and the same was as per the allegations, not insured on the date of accident. This Court has also taken into consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was running the vehicle as a taxi and he is not in a position to deposit the amount as was ordered by the learned Court below and the order of learned Court below in not taking into consideration the factum of security, could have been taken while releasing the vehicle, is required to be modified. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 2 SCC 607 , has held as under: "41. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf." 8. This Court while going though the impugned order finds that the learned Court below while passing the order has not taken into consideration whether the security can be taken or not and why it was not taken and only petitioner was asked to deposit the amount or to furnish the bank guarantee. This Court while going though the impugned order finds that the learned Court below while passing the order has not taken into consideration whether the security can be taken or not and why it was not taken and only petitioner was asked to deposit the amount or to furnish the bank guarantee. So, in these circumstance, orders passed by learned Courts below are required to be set aside and the application is required to be remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the same afresh, taking into consideration the factum with regard to security and pass an appropriate order after taking into consideration the averment, whether furnishing of the security will meet the ends of justice, as prayed for, or not. Also for taking into consideration the fact that the security, as furnished, will be liable to be liquidated easily or not. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the order passed by learned trial Court and upheld by learned Revisional Court, is set aside and the application is remanded back to the learned trial Court to adjudicate the same afresh. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 13th May, 2019.