The Jharkhand High Court set aside two lower-court orders that had conditioned the release of a seized Maruti Baleno on an onerous security of Rs.4 lakh per head, holding that such requirements were arbitrary, exceeded the vehicle’s market value and violated the purpose of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sajid Khan, a resident of Lohsinghna, Hazaribagh district, is the registered owner of a Maruti Baleno bearing Registration No.JH02AX9637. The vehicle was seized on 17.04.2026 in connection with Charhi Police Station Case No.34 of 2026, arising from a road accident that caused two deaths.
Key Facts
- The vehicle was seized on 17.04.2026 following the accident.
- The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribagh, on 22.05.2026 ordered the vehicle’s release subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.4,00,000 and a security of Rs.4,00,000 per head in the form of a Demand Draft or Fixed Deposit.
- The petitioner challenged this order by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh, dismissed the petitioner’s Criminal Revision on 30.06.2026.
- The petitioner argued that the security requirement was disproportionate to the vehicle’s market value and that no auction had been conducted despite the three-month period prescribed for disposal.
Procedural History
- 17.04.2026: Vehicle seized by investigating police.
- 22.05.2026: Judicial Magistrate-1st Class order allowing release subject to indemnity bond and security of Rs.4 lakh each.
- Date not specified: Petitioner files Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 B.N.S., 2023 (Cr.M.P. No.2582 of 2026).
- 30.06.2026: Additional Sessions Judge-II dismisses the Criminal Revision (Criminal Revision No.74 of 2026).
- 20.08.2026: High Court delivers judgment quashing both orders and allowing the petition.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Contended that the requirement of a total security of Rs.8 lakh (Rs.4 lakh bond + Rs.4 lakh security) was arbitrary, exceeded the vehicle’s resale value, and that the magistrate failed to consider auctioning the vehicle as mandated by Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019.
- State: Opposed the petition, maintaining that the conditions were lawful and necessary to secure compensation for the accident victims.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 22.05.2026 and 30.06.2026 and requested that the vehicle be released upon furnishing a reasonable indemnity bond and security.
The Legal Issue
Whether the conditions imposed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge-II - namely, an indemnity bond of Rs.4 lakh and a security of Rs.4 lakh per head in the form of a Demand Draft or Fixed Deposit - are arbitrary and violative of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019, thereby warranting quashment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied on Rohit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (Cr.M.P. No.4187 of 2023, dated 3 April 2024) where the Court allowed release of a seized vehicle on furnishing a lower indemnity bond of Rs.2 lakh with two solvent sureties.
- Asserted that the requirement of Rs.8 lakh security was disproportionate to the market value of the Maruti Baleno and that the magistrate had not initiated the statutory auction process after the three-month period, rendering the condition onerous.
- Emphasised that the purpose of Rule 6 is to ensure compensation to accident victims, not to impose punitive financial burdens on the vehicle owner.
For the State
- Argued that the conditions were within the discretion of the magistrate to secure potential compensation.
- Maintained that the petitioner’s request to substitute the security with a lower bond would undermine the protective intent of the statute.
- Contended that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by interpreting Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to quash orders that are illegal, arbitrary or otherwise untenable. It observed that the statutory scheme under Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 is designed to ensure that the owner of a seized vehicle ultimately contributes to compensation awarded in motor accident claims. The rule authorises the magistrate to sell the vehicle at public auction after three months of possession if the owner fails to comply with reasonable conditions.
"the act of the learned Magistrate without assessing the present market value of the said seized Maruti Baleno Vehicle bearing Registration No.JH02AX9637 in connection with this case, imposing the condition of furnishing security of Rs.8,00,000/ - in the form of Demand Draft or Fixed Deposit appears to be arbitrary and onerous."
The Court noted that no auction had been initiated despite the lapse of the three-month period, indicating a failure to follow the procedural safeguard envisaged by Rule 6. By demanding a security amount that far exceeded the vehicle’s market value, the magistrate effectively barred the petitioner from reclaiming his property, contravening the principle of proportionality.
Distinguishing the earlier precedent Rohit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, the Court held that while a lower bond was permissible in that case, the present circumstances demanded a higher bond only insofar as it was necessary to secure potential compensation, not to impose an undue financial burden. Consequently, the Court modified the bond requirement to Rs.8,00,000 with two solvent sureties, aligning the security with the compensation potential while removing the excessive Demand Draft/F.D. condition.
The Court therefore exercised its power under Section 528 to quash both the order dated 22.05.2026 and the subsequent order dated 30.06.2026, and to direct the release of the vehicle upon compliance with the revised conditions.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the order dated 22.05.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class and the order dated 30.06.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II. It directed the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.8,00,000 with two solvent sureties and an undertaking to pay any compensation awarded in the motor accident claim. The Judicial Magistrate-1st Class was ordered to release the Maruti Baleno (Reg. No.JH02AX9637) to the petitioner upon compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasonableness of Security Conditions
- Courts will scrutinise security requirements for release of seized vehicles to ensure they are proportionate to the vehicle’s market value.
- Parties should be prepared to demonstrate the current market value and argue that excessive bonds constitute an arbitrary restriction.
Mandatory Auction Provision
- Magistrates must initiate the statutory auction process after the three-month possession period if the owner does not comply with reasonable conditions.
- Failure to do so may render any subsequent security condition arbitrary and subject to quashment.
Leveraging Precedent
-
Rohit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand can be cited to argue for lower indemnity bonds where the vehicle’s value does not justify higher security.
-
However, each case must be assessed on its own facts, particularly the estimated compensation liability.
-
Practitioners should file petitions under Section 528 B.N.S., 2023 promptly when faced with onerous conditions, highlighting procedural lapses and disproportionality.
-
Courts are likely to favour a balanced approach that protects victims’ compensation rights without unduly penalising vehicle owners.
