JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, 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 05.02.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 14/2020 arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No. 110 of 2020, by which prayer of the petitioner for release of truck was rejected.

4. The F.I.R. was instituted against the driver of the Truck bearing Reg. No. JH-09S-2109 alleging therein that on 29.08.2020 at about 6.30 the motorcycle of the nephew of the informant met with an accident with the said truck near Anand Hotel, Henjala in which the nephew of the informant died at the spot.

5. Mr. Prabhat Singh, 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. He submits that the learned trial court vide order dated 21.10.2020 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. 14 of 2020 which was rejected vide order dated 05.02.2021.

6. 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. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of 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 herein-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 that there is provision of release of the vehicle if the owner furnishes sufficient security to the