Partly allowed¶18

Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2025NA528/1319/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

superdari; release of vehicle; Section 451 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; fixed deposit condition; personal bond; surety; reasonable conditions; harsh conditions; Case Crime No.050/2025; Sections 281, 106, 125-A, 125-B B.N.S. 2023; Rule 203 Kha (3); U.P. Motor Vehicle (XIth Amendment) Rules 2011; third party risk insurance; vehicle UP-32-PN-2973; Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom) Lucknow; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manoj Bajaj J.; order modified; condition set aside.

What did the court decide?

Application partly allowed; impugned order dated 03.09.2025 modified; condition of depositing fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs for release of the vehicle set aside; rest of the conditions (personal bond and surety bond of like amount) remain intact. ¶18

Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition imposed by the trial court in the superdari order dated 03.09.2025 - deposit of a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs as separate security in addition to a personal bond and surety of like amount - for release of the applicant's vehicle is justified. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Since the trial court had already directed the applicant/owner to furnish a personal bond of Rs.5 lacs as well as surety of the like amount, the additional condition of depositing a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs for release of the vehicle is not justified and is unreasonable, even though the trial court relied on Rule 203 Kha (3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle (XIth Amendment) Rules, 2011 because the vehicle's insurance was without third party risk.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

While exercising its discretion under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to pass an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial, the trial court is required to impose reasonable conditions; conditions that are harsh and beyond the means of the applicant/owner of the vehicle would amount to giving a relief by one hand and taking it back with the other.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 1319 of 2025, decided October 7, 2025. The applicant, whose vehicle UP-32-PN-2973 was allegedly involved in an accident causing death and injuries (F.I.R./Case Crime No.050/2025, Sections 281, 106, 125-A, 125-B B.N.S., 2023), challenged the limited aspect of the order dated 03.09.2025 of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow releasing the vehicle on superdari, whereby he was required, in addition to a personal bond and surety of like amount (Rs.5 lacs each), to deposit a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs as separate security. The Court held that under Section 451 Cr.P.C. the trial court must impose only reasonable conditions when disposing of property pending trial, and conditions beyond the owner's means negate the relief; since a personal bond of Rs.5 lacs and surety of like amount were already ordered, the additional fixed-deposit condition - imposed relying on Rule 203 Kha (3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle (XIth Amendment) Rules, 2011 owing to absence of third-party risk insurance - was unjustified and unreasonable. Application partly allowed; the fixed-deposit condition set aside; the bond and surety conditions left intact.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1319 of 2025

¶3

Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anil Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶10

The applicant-Pankaj alias Pankaj Yadav has filed this application under Section under Section 528 BNSS to challenge the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Case Crime No.050/2025, under Sections 281, 106, 125-A, 125-B B.N.S., 2023, only to the limited extent, whereby while releasing the vehicle on superdari, the applicant has been ordered to deposit a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs as separate security, in addition to the personal bond and surety of like amount.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the vehicle no.UP-32-PN-2973, owned by the applicant was allegedly involed in a vethicular accident resulting in death of complainant's daughter and injuries to three others, whereupon the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.050/2025 was registered, wherein the applicant is facing trial. He submits that the vehicle owned by the applicant was impounded, therefore, during trial proceedings, an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle was moved, which has been accepted vide order dated 03.09.2025. Learned counsel has pointed out that while ordering release of the vehicle, the trial court has also imposed a condition of depositing a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs in addition to the other conditions, but because of financial constraints the applicant is unable to fulfill the said condition. He prays that the said condition be set-aside.

¶12

Learned State Counsel while opposing the prayer has argued that the condition imposed by the trial court are reasonable and the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law,therefore, no interference by this is warranted. He prays that the application be dismissed.t

¶13

After hearintg learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions this Court finds that Section 451 Cr.P.C. vests powers with the trial court to pass an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial, and while exercising the such

¶14

NA528 No. 1319 of 2025

¶15

¶16

discretion it is expected that the trial court is required to impose reasonable conditions upon the applicant. In other words, if, the conditions imposed by the trial court are harsh and beyond the means of the applicant/owner of the vehicle, it would be like giving a relief by one hand and taking it back with other. Notably, the trial court has also directed the applicant/owner of the vehicle to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5 lacs as well as surety of the like amount, therefore, the impugned condition of deposing a fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs is not justified.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the trial court has relied upon Rule 203 Kha (3) of U.P. Motor Vehicle (XIth Amendment) Rules, 2011 to observe that as the insurance of vehicle of the applicant is without third party risk, therefore, it proceeded to impose the impugned condition in order to secure the payment of the compensation to the claimants. The impugned order itself notices that as per this Rule the registered owner is requtired to furnish a sufficient surety/security while seeking release of the vehicle. Once the personal bond of the applicant as well as furnishing of surety is already ordered by the trial court the additional condition of depositing fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs is unreasonable.

¶18

Resultantly, the application is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 is modified and the condition of depositing fixed deposit of Rs.5 lacs for release of the vehicle is set-aside. It is clarified that rest of the conditions of furnishing the personal bond and surety bond for the like amount shall remain intact.

¶19

October 7, 2025 /R./

¶20

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶21

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

Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Brij Bihari Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Satyapal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Asad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another