No, you don't need oil to run a car or else fall back on trees, mankind has known how to distill booze for a long, long time, and booze - or ethanol - can be brewed fairly cheaply out of damn near anything if taste is not an issue... we have in fact been using it for that purpose for longer than we've had oil wells. But it take sup a lot more land and labor to make than drilling up some pre-existing crap that actually has more joules per liter than booze anyway. So people wouldn't absolutely need fossil fuels to go industrial... not too surprising since we went industrial before we had oil wells all over the place. What that means is that as industrialization on some world that has coal and oil [which is probably a given consideirng its origins] is going to start off and have someone say "Hey, you know that black rock and liquid crap? Well it's a hell of lot cheaper and better at producing fire and heat then alcohol, tallow, and such" and whichever group, business, region, etc that decides to use it first is suddenly going to find themselves on the top of the heap, what with the leap in productivity and all.

Now if we're talking about how likely coal and oil are to form, that's hard to say under the classic 'only one example' problem we have. But unless some world spewed out a tech culture in an absurdly short piece of time compared to us, the odds would favor it strongly, you should get coal and oil on any planet that's had lots of biomass for hundreds of millions of years. As oil goes you need a prolonged period of biomass falling to the bottom of the ocean faster than it decomposes for it to form in quantity, which makes guessing at the average amount of oil that forms on a planet kinda hard, but natural gas, coal, and other hydrocarbons achieve the same purpose and all form variously so that basically 'lotta biomass for a long time equals fossil fuels' is a reasonable guesstimate.

You can hypothesize some reasonable alternate worlds where you'd have issues though. Uranium, especially the useful stuff for power generation, has a very short half-life, and not all stars live as long as the Earth is old. A world that had really radiaiton-sturdy critters and lots of fresh uranium might bypass fossil fuels by noting that 'those rocks are very warm' and cobble together some craptacular Chernobyl nightmare in the Stonehenge stage, especially if the stuff arrived significantly, like a uranium rich asteroid 'sent by the gods' that kills the unworthy and must be handled with holy lead tongs. A cooler longer-lived star might allow life billions of extra years to form then find itself pretty much screwed on every developing nuclear power from a lack of significant remaining radioactive material... and for that matter the so-called 'goldilocks zone' for most stars smaller than ours is likely to give you tidally locked planets which you may recall from prior conversations is not likely to be well-suited for life, especially the tons of biomass per acre needed not just to support the kinda of life likely to be forming civilizations, and would probably have very little coal or oil. Stars even a little bit larger than ours, since stellar life is exponentially shorter as mass increases, would die before the dinosaurs reared their heads. You can't rule out oddballs, but tech is a trend thing, same as evolution itself in many respects. And brain mass, beyond a certain minimum, isn't all there is to it. A raccoon's brain is considerably smaller than an elephant's but I'd give them much better odds at replacing us if all the primates suddenly got eliminated, most big quadrupeds have very little use for delicate bones in their extremities to serve as some sort of hand, some world of big-brained hoofed critters as the apex critter might easily never have tech develop.