[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Athika Beebi vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:3296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
CRIME NO.818/2025 OF Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2025 IN CMP NO.1764 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KASARAGOD
PETITIONER/S:
ATHIKA BEEBI, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O HAMSA, PAKKYARA HOUSE, PAKKYARA PALLIKARA II, BEKAL
P.O, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671316
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ
SHRI.ARUN JOHNY
SHRI.ABIN JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 692031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
POLICE STATION RD, NEAR MANJESHWAR, HOSABETTU,
MANJESHWAR, KERALA, PIN - 671323
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SREEJA V
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:3296
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.20 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle
bearing registration No.KL 59 U 4809, which was involved in a
road accident which led to the registration of Crime
No.818/2025 by the Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod, as
against the driver of the vehicle alleging the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 196 read with
Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the
petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasargod (Trial
Court) under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. By the impugned Annexure A3 order, the
learned Magistrate has ordered interim custody of the vehicle
to be given to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the
petitioner furnishes cash security for Rs.3/- lakh and also
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
2026:KER:3296
executes a bond for Rs.5/- lakh. The condition to furnish cash
security for Rs.3/- lakh 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 direction in Annexure-A3 order ordering that the
petitioner should furnish cash security or bank guarantee
towards the value of the vehicle is onerous and unjustifiable.
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
2026:KER:3296
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".
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
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
2026:KER:3296
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 that the petitioner
should furnish a cash security or furnish a bank guarantee for
Rs.3/- lakh. 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
person(s) have instituted any claim petition for compensation
and further that the very intention of Rule 391A of the Rules,
is to ensure 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.
Taking into account the above aspect, I allow this
Criminal Miscellaneous Case by modifying condition (a) and
directing that the vehicle to be released to the petitioner on
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
2026:KER:3296
her executing a bond for Rs.8/- lakh with two solvent sureties
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and
complying with conditions (c) to (g), specifically undertaking
to pay the compensation amount to the injured person(s), if
any award is passed against the petitioner.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/15.01.26
CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
2026:KER:3296
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 818/2025
REGISTERED ON 30/09/2025 BY MANJESHWAR
POLICE, KASARGOD DISTRICT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 1764/2025 FILED ON
23/10/2025 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,
KASARGOD
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.1764/2025
DATED 11TH NOVEMBER 2025 PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,
KASARGOD
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2025
IN CRL MC NO. 11422/2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
