Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024/1419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash a order directing an exorbitant security deposit for future accident claims and modifying the surety requirements for vehicle release. The High Court modified the order to require two equal sureties instead of the single high-value surety.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.07.2023 modified to release the vehicle after taking a personal bond of Rs. 45,000/- and two sureties of equal amount.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14212

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1419 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the portion of the order dated 27.07.2023, passed beyond jurisdiction so far as the same goes to provided for taking security deposit (Pratibhuti) of Rs. 2,00,000/- for future accidental claim, passed by Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Hardoi for release of motorcycle bearing No. UP 30 AS 9953 in relation to Case Crime No. 587 of 2022, under Sections 279, 338, 427 IPC, Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi, contained as Annexure no. 1 to this petition as well as to direct the concerned Magistrate to release the vehicle of the petitioner after taking surety as provided under the law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vehicle of the petitioner bearing no. UP 30 AS 9953 has wrongly been implicated in the incident in question. The release application was filed before the court below alongwith the copy of the Insurance Certificate as well as R.C. and learned court below allowed the release application with a direction to furnish a personal bond of Rs.45,000/- and one surety of equal amount and also directed for one surety of Rs.2,00,000/-, so as to secure the accidental claim which may arise in future and such surety is highly exorbitant, therefore, the petitioner is unable to get his vehicle released.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that he is ready to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 45000/- and one surety of equal amount, therefore, the aforesaid order may be modified to the effect that he may not be compelled to furnish one surety of Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the petitioner but he does not dispute the fact that issue, related to the motor accident

¶11

claim, cannot be considered at the time of release of the vehicle.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, contents of the petition as well as other relevant documents, as the learned court below, at the time of passing the order for release of vehicle, presumed the circumstances related to the motor accident claim, as a result, this Court is of the view that learned court below has committed wrong in presuming the motor accident claim, therefore, the order dated 27.07.2023 is modified and the vehicle in question be released after taking personal bond of Rs.45,000/- and two sureties of equal amount.

¶13

In view of the above, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶14

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶15

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 kkv/

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Lalta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Mohd Naseem and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Utsav Singh Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Surendra Alias Bhure and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pri. Secy. Home Lko and Another