JUDGMENT :

Heard, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent the matter has been heard on merit.

3. Petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of order dated 23.12.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 62/2020 by which the order dated 21.09.2020 passed in Giddi P.S. Case No. 3/2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh, was confirmed.

4. Giddi P.S. Case No. 3/2020 was instituted against the driver of the Bus bearing Reg. No. JH 02 AD 7017 alleging therein that on 26.01.2020 one School Bus met with an accident in which three children sustained injury. The driver fled away from the place of occurrence. On these backgrounds, the case was instituted.

5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-owner filed an application for release of his vehicle before the learned trial court which was seized pursuant to accident and was lying in open field since January, 2020. He submits that the learned trial court vide order dated 21.09.2020 rejected the release application filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that no document in support of the insurance of the vehicle of the said date has been furnished by the petitioner. He submits that against the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2020 which was rejected vide order dated 23.12.2020.

6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 speaks that the vehicle can be released if 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. He submits that Rule 6 of the said Rule has not been considered properly by the trial court as well as by the revisional court. He submits that since the vehicle in question is commercial one and lying in open field, no purpose will serve in keeping the vehicle deteriorated.

7. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the revisional order has rightly been passed.

8. For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 is quoted here-in-below:

6.(1). No Court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death of 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 registered owner or when the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the registered 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 registered owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstances mentioned 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 purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.”

9. On perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it transpires t