Dismissed

Kisnaram v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2018CRLMP/3624/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a bail petition challenging a condition to deposit security for releasing a vehicle seized in a motor accident. The Court held that since no claim petition was filed, the petitioner could file a fresh application with an affidavit, without being forced to deposit security prematurely.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to move a fresh application for releasing the vehicle after filing an affidavit and undertaking.

Kisnaram Vs State — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3624/2016

¶3

Kisnaram son of Shri Lalaram, by caste Bishnoi, Resident of Rohilla East, Tehsil Dhorimanna, Distt. Barmer

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

18/07/2018

¶12

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chouhtan, Distt. Barmer (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby, the trial court has allowed the second application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the tractor cum trolly bearing registration No.RJ-04-R-4051 with a condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of rupees seven lac with the said court or produce a bank guarantee of the like amount.

¶13

It appears that the trial court has imposed the aforesaid condition while taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. & Ors. , reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that where

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-3624/2016]

¶16

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.

¶17

The tractor cum trolly bearing registration No.RJ-04-R-4051 was involved in the accident and in relation to that, charge-sheet was also filed against one of the accused Sawai Singh. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the trial court after satisfying that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled to get the said vehicle on ‘supardaginama’ has imposed a condition of depositing of rupees seven lac or producing a bank guarantee of the like amount with the intention to satisfy the award that may ultimately passed in any claim petition by the claimants of the person who died in the accident.

¶18

The trial court has observed that the claimants of the deceased must have filed a claim petition and to secure their rights, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit rupees seven lac or produce the bank guarantee of like amount in lieu of release of the tractor cum trolly involved in the accident.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact, the claimants of deceased Maru Ram has not filed any claim petition before any MACT Court and, therefore, the condition of depositing of rupees seven lac imposed by the trial court is not reasonable.

¶20

This court is of the opinion that if no such claim petition has ever been filed by the claimants of deceased Maru Ram, who died in the accident, then the petitioner may move a fresh application

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMP-3624/2016]

¶23

for releasing the vehicle in question on ‘supardaginama’ before the trial court disclosing this fact supported by an affidavit. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the trial court of this effect that in case any liability of compensation arises in future against the vehicle involved in the accident, he will satisfy the said liability by depositing the same.

¶24

On filing of the affidavit as well as the undertaking, the trial court shall consider the fresh application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question on ‘supardaginama’ and thereafter pass a fresh order on the same.

¶25

With these observations, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of.

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

ms rathore

Kisnaram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisnaram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nijamudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh Deval Vs State and Anr.

Kamlesh Vs State

Ganpat Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan

Munna Lal Deora Vs State and Anr.