The central legal point established is that under Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019, Rule 6, a vehicle involved in an accident may be released if the owner furnishes sufficient security to pay potential compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J.S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega whereby Misc. Criminal Application No. 77/2022 filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-20D-8600 has been rejected in connection with Bano P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 109 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega.

3. The F.I.R. was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of informant alleging therein that on 19.01.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor bearing Registration No. JH20D-8600 one Ram Chick Baraik died.

4. Mr. J.S. 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 19.05.2022 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.

5. 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. 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.

6. 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 said order has rightly been passed.

7. 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.”

8. 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 satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at bar that the petitioner is ready to deposit the sufficient security/bond to the satisfaction of the Court for compensation which may arise after award passed in pending case, if any. Moreover, the vehicle in question is l