- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.202050 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAJKUMAR S/O VISHWANTH PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O MRUKI, TQ. KAMALNAGAR, DIST. BIDAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KAMALANAGAR POLICE STATION, BIDAR DISTRICT NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AURAD-B IN CRIME NO.105/2025 OF KAMALANGAR POLICE STATION BIDAR DISTRICT IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 EXECUTING INDEMNITY BOND FOR RS 10,00,000/- WITH BANK SECURITY/ AND ALSO QUASH ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED IN CRL.R.P NO. 18/2025 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO EXECUTING INDEMNITY BOND OF RS 5 LAKH WITH BANK GUARANTEE OF RS 5 LAKH, AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE TRACTOR BEARING REG NO. KA 38/T 6396 BY RELAXING THE CONDITION TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE SEIZED BY THE KAMALNAGAR POLICE STATION BIDAR DISTRICT IN CRIME NO.105/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE SECTION 281, 125A, 125B AND BNS, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AURAD -B IN CRIME NO.105/2025 BIDAR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is assailing the concurrent orders of the courts below insofar as the condition imposed upon petitioner calling upon him to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as well as bank guarantee for the same amount which was partially modified by the Revisional Court by calling upon petitioner to execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the same amount of bank guarantee. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that though this Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that while releasing a vehicle to a lawful registered owner, the insistence on furnishing a bank guarantee is ordinarily impermissible, the Courts below have invoked Rule 232(G) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on account of absence of statutory insurance coverage in respect of third-party risk. It is not in dispute that the learned Magistrate initially directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/-, which came to be scaled down by the Revisional Court to Rs.5,00,000/-. The Revisional Court has taken note of the quotation produced indicating that the market value of the tractor involved in the accident is Rs.6,50,000/- inclusive of applicable taxes. 3. However, this Court is of the considered view that even the reduced condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- does not adequately balance the competing interests involved. The petitioner is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 admittedly a poor agriculturalist, whose livelihood depends upon the use of the tractor, and insisting upon a bank guarantee of such magnitude would, in effect, render the order of release illusory. A condition which the petitioner is demonstrably incapable of complying with would amount to a constructive denial of interim custody, notwithstanding the formal grant of relief. 4. This Court is also required to strike a delicate balance between the right of the petitioner to seek interim custody of his vehicle and the legitimate interests of the injured third party. The records indicate that the third party has sustained fractures and crush injuries and is likely to have initiated or may initiate proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. If the tractor continues to remain in the custody of the police station for an indefinite period, it would inevitably suffer depreciation and deterioration, which would not only prejudice the petitioner but would also adversely impact the interest of the third-party claimant while enforcing any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 eventual award. Preservation of the vehicle’s value is, therefore, in the interest of all stakeholders. 5. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy as against third-party risk, thereby justifying the imposition of a reasonable safeguard. Nonetheless, such safeguard must be realistic, proportionate, and capable of compliance. An excessive condition, beyond the financial capacity of the petitioner, would defeat the very purpose of invoking Rule 232(G) and would undermine the principle that procedural conditions should facilitate justice and not frustrate it. 6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, the socio-economic background of the petitioner, the assessed market value of the tractor, the nature of injuries sustained by the third party, and the need to prevent further depreciation of the vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that the condition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 imposed by the Revisional Court warrants further modification. Reduction of the bank guarantee amount would sufficiently secure the interests of the injured claimant, while at the same time enabling the petitioner to avail the relief of interim custody. Such a calibrated approach alone would advance the ends of justice. 7. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part; (ii) Consequently, the condition imposed by the Revisional Court directing the petitioner to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with a bank guarantee for the like sum is hereby modified; (iii) The petitioner is directed to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with a bank guarantee for the said amount; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7818 CRL.P No. 202050 of 2025 (iv) The remaining portion of the order passed by the Revisional Court shall remain unaltered. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26 CT:SI