HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1319 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. 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. 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. 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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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. 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. October 7, 2025/R./ NA528 No. 1319 of 2025 2 (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench