The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 6(1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019, which allows for the release of a vehicle if the owner furnishes sufficient security to pay potential compensation arising from the accident.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, 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 12.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1645 of 2021 arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 438 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby petition for release of Tata Magic vehicle bearing Reg. No. JH 24B-8523 in favour of petitioner, has been rejected.

4. The F.I.R. was instituted stating therein that when the informant along with his nephew was going to Telmochho on motorcycle bearing Registration No. Jh-10CA-6877 and reached near Khutri Chowk, one Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-24-B8523 being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle due to which the nephew of the informant sustained grievous injury and later on he died.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-24B-8523. The petitioner has filed an application for release of his vehicle before the learned trial court which was seized pursuant to accident. He submits that the investigating officer has submitted report that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle. It has been alleged that on the date of accident the seized vehicle was not covered with any insurance policy and on that ground petition for release was rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the concerned court looking into Rule 6(1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that Rule 6 (1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019 provides that vehicle can be released when 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 properly considered by the learned trial 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 and the impugned 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 ha