Karnataka High Court: Amount of Security for Release of Seized Vehicle Must be Calculated on the Basis of Probable Value of Vehicle

Karnataka High Court: Amount of Security for Release of Seized Vehicle Must be Calculated on the Basis of Probable Value of Vehicle

The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court has observed that the amount of security for release of seized vehicle to the interim custody of the owner must be calculated based on the probable value of the vehicle and cannot be randomly fixed without any basis under Rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules.

The single judge Justice Anil B Katti while passing the order modified the condition imposed by Trial Court for release of the interim custody of the seized vehicle calling upon the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in addition to executing indemnity bond and surety bond for Rs. 5 lakhs.

The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner Mustafa Rasoolanava had approached the Court questioning the order of the Trial Court passed on the application made by him under Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The only contention raised by the petitioner was that there was 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 was ordered to be deposited in terms of Rule 232G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules is on much higher side, considering the vehicle documents and photographs further in which condition vehicle was seized.

At the outset, the Court rejected the contention of the prosecution that the petition challenging an interim order passed by the Trial Court was not maintainable.

While referring to catena of judgments, the Court was of the view that it was evident that revision petition against the order passed in terms of Section 451 of Cr.P.C., was maintainable.

The judge from the records found that the seized vehicle had no insurance coverage and therefore, the Trial Court was 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 Court avowed that, “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 noted that the seized vehicle as per the RC book is of 1997 model and as on the date of seizure on 8 June, 2023 more than 26 years have been elapsed.

Thus, if depreciation per year is calculated on basis of 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.