[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shajimon vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
CRIME NO.945/2024 OF Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2024 IN CRMP NO.3552 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJIMON
AGED 48 YEARS
PANDAKASALA HOUSE, VAYAKKAL P.O, VALAKAM,
KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691532
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARJUN S.
SHRI.AZEEM HASSAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANDALAM POLICE STATION, OPPOSITE POST OFFICE,
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689501
PP.SRI. SANAL P. RAJ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
2
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No.KL 24-G-2100, which is involved in Crime
No.945/2024 registered by the Pandalam Police Station,
Pathanamthitta, against the driver of the vehicle for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS) and Section 146 read with Section
196 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( M.V. Act.
2. Claiming interim custody of the above vehicle,
the petitioner filed CMP No.3552/2024 before the Court
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor (Trial Court)
under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. By the impugned Annexure 3 order, the
learned Magistrate has granted interim custody of the
vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions. As per
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
condition No.1 in Annexure 3 order, the petitioner has
been directed to deposit Rs.3,20,000/- to get the vehicle
released. The said condition is onerous and
unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the condition No.1 in Annexure 3 order, directing
the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,20,000/- is onerous and
unjustifiable. There is no provision under the BNSS or
the MV Act, directing the above course. Therefore,
condition No.1 may be quashed.
5. The above submission is refuted by the learned
Public Prosecutor, who submits that the petitioner's
vehicle did not have a third party insurance at the time of
accident. It is keeping in mind the said aspect, Rule 391
A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('Rules', in
short) and the law laid down by this Court in State of
Kerala v. Sanith Jan (2023 (3) KLT 319) that the learned
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
Magistrate has imposed the said condition. Therefore,
the said condition cannot be said to be onerous.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's vehicle
did not have a valid insurance certificate at the time of
the accident. In the above context, it is necessary to refer
to Rule 391A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
which reads as follows:
"Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in
accident.--
(1) No Court shall release a motor vehicle
involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury
or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by
the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in
the name of owner or when the owner fails to furnish copy
of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating
police officer, unless and until the owner furnishes
sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to pay
compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising
out of such accident.
(2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a
policy of insurance against third party risks, or when the
owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such
policy in circumstance mentioned in sub-rule (1), or the
owner fails to furnish sufficient security as provided in sub-
rule (1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public
auction by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area
where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the
vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating
police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with
the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
question, within fifteen days for the purpose of satisfying
the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be
awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident".
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
7. Interpreting the above Rule in Sanith Jan's
(supra) case, this Court has held as follows:
"16.In view of the above discussion, it is held that
the word 'sufficient security' in Rule 391A of the Rules
meas a security from which the amount, when awarded,
can easily be recovered, that too without any further
litigation. Ideally, a cash deposit or a bank guarantee or
fixed deposit receipts or other modes of security from
which the amount when awarded, can easily be recovered,
should be the nature of security to be furnished under Rule
391A. Executing a bond for the amount directed cannot, in
the circumstances, be treated as sufficient security.
17. In this context, it is necessary to observe that
if the vehicle is released without obtaining a fresh valid
insurance policy against third party risks, it would militate
against the intention behind the Rule. Therefore, it would
be appropriate that Magistrates insist on production of
fresh valid insurance policy against third party risks before
releasing the vehicle".
8. It is considering the above Rule and the
principles laid down in the aforecited decision that the
learned Magistrate has imposed the condition to deposit
Rs.3,20,000/-. Therefore, the said condition cannot be
said to be unjustifiable or improper. However,
considering the fact that, as on today, there is no
material to show that the injured persons have instituted
any claim petition for compensation and further that the
very intention of Rule 391A of the Rules, is to ensure
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
that the owner of the vehicle does not plead no means to
pay the compensation amount, I am of the view that it is
not the value of the vehicle that is to be looked into, but
it is the claim that is proposed to be filed by the injured
persons that has to be considered. Furthermore, the
vehicle is lying in judicial custody since 22.08.2024, and
the petitioner is unable to comply with the condition in
Annexure 3 order. Moreover, the vehicle is lying
exposed to the vagaries of nature, and is likely to be
ruined and rusted, I am of the view that the condition
No.1 in Annexure 3 order can be suitably modified.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow this
Crl.M.C, by modifying condition No.1 and by directing
that the vehicle to be released to the petitioner on him
executing a bond for Rs.5/- lakh with two solvent sureties
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and
by complying with condition Nos. 2 to 6 in Annexure 3
order. The petitioner shall also specifically undertake to
ply the vehicle only after having a third party insurance
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
and also pay the compensation amount to the injured
persons, if any award is passed against the petitioner.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/10/2/2026
2026:KER:11834
CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1099 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.945/2024 OF
PANDALAM POLICE STATION DTD 22.08.2024
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF CRL.MP.NO.3552/2024 OF THE
HON'BLE JFCM COURT-ADOOR IN
CR.NO.945/2024 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION
DTD 01.10.2024
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
JFCM COURT-ADOOR IN CRL.MP.NO.3552/2024
DTD 05.12.2024 IN CR.NO.945/2024 OF
PANDALAM POLICE STATION
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF VEHICLE
HAVING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL-24-G-2100
