[2025:JHHC:15305] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1167 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1167 of 2025 ------ Shibu Mandal @ Shibu Kumar Mandal, aged about 26 years, Son of Biru Mandal, R/o village- Narayanpur, P.O. & P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Revision No.28 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamtara in M.C.A. No.1230 of 2024 and the prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamtara in M.C.A. No.1230 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned ACJM, Jamtara rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.36 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code which was registered in connection with the occurrence in which the Tata Magic vehicle of the [2025:JHHC:15305] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1167 of 2025 petitioner dashed the son of the informant and fled away; resulting in injuries to the son of the informant. The learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara considered that on the date of accident, the said vehicle of the petitioner was not insured and the insurance of the vehicle was made one day after the accident. The learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara also considered that in the said accident, the victim namely Nejam Ansari ultimately died and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- before the court of learned ACJM, Jamtara for release of the seized Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10 CJ 0748 and directed the trial court to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner after hearing the petition of release of the vehicle and dismissed the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in-question is not involved in the alleged accident and the investigation of the case is still going on. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the motorcycle which the deceased was riding on, was dashed by another vehicle but the name of the petitioner and his vehicle, has falsely been dragged into this case, to harass him. It is next submitted that since the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara has directed the vehicle to be released on the condition of deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, there is no way the revision could have been dismissed. It is then submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit indemnity bond for release of the said vehicle and the petitioner has purchased the vehicle after taking loan and is not in position to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. It is further submitted that the seized vehicle is commercial vehicle and is lying under open sky in the premises of police station which is causing damage to the vehicle and diminishing its value. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that keeping in view the fact that the Tata Magic vehicle was purchased in the year 2021 as mentioned in [2025:JHHC:15305] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1167 of 2025 para-18 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and it was used as a commercial vehicle for a considerable period of time before meeting with the alleged accident and its seizure and also considering the fact that the value of the said vehicle in-question has diminished considerably after being allowed to be kept under open sky within the premises of the police station for over the period of more than one year, the present value of the same, by no stretch of imagination, can exceed more than Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash with Nazarat of Civil Court, Jamtara. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that since the vehicle was not having any insurance, so no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the petition for release of the vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Revision No.28 of 2024 is wholly misconceived. In para-7, the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara mentioned “As per provision, the said seized vehicle Tata Magic bearing Registration No. JH 01 CJ 0748 may be released after depositing Rs.5,00,000/- before the court concerned and the said amount shall be deposited in the Nazarat of Civil Court, Jamtara”. It is pertinent to mention here that nowhere, the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara has mentioned that as per which provision, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been stipulated to be deposited, moreover when the [2025:JHHC:15305] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1167 of 2025 learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara directed the trial court for release of the vehicle and deposit Rs.5,00,000/-, the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara could have modified the order of the trial court but once the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara modifies the order of the trial court in exercise of revisional power, certainly the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara simultaneously cannot dismiss the criminal revision. Further, when the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara directs the trial court to do a thing in a particular manner, there is no way the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara could have passed order directing the trial court to hear afresh on the petition for release of the said vehicle. When the petitioner never volunteers to deposit Rs.5,00,000/-, there is no way the Sessions Court could have directed to the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- nor it could have directed the trial court to release the vehicle on the condition of depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 which reads as under:- “6. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.- (1) No court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or 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 circumstance 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. (Emphasis supplied)” [2025:JHHC:15305] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1167 of 2025 which envisages that as a condition precedent for release of seized vehicle involved in accident, such security or cash deposit is to be made by the owner of the vehicle within a period of three months and if within a period of three months, the owner of the vehicle fails to deposit the security/cash amount, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and the sale proceeds be held in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. 8. 8. Now coming the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned ACJM, Jamtara and the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara have failed to act in accordance with Rule-6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and they have unnecessarily allowed the vehicle to be kept in open sky and thereby diminishing its value. 9. As already indicated above, Rule-6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 mandates that if an owner of the vehicle, even if the vehicle is involved in an accident causing death of or bodily injury to any person or injury to any property, has no insurance covering the third-party risks, if otherwise, the petitioner seeking the release of the vehicle is entitled to get custody of the vehicle as per law, the absence of the insurance policy covering the third-party risks will not be an impediment for release of the vehicle but the rider in such a case is that, the registered owner must be asked to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. 10. It is crystal clear from the fact of the case that though the seized vehicle allegedly involved in accident has been seized more than a year ago and neither learned ACJM, Jamtara nor the Sessions Judge, Jamtara, has taken any steps to ensure compliance of Rule-6(2) of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents [2025:JHHC:15305] 6 Cr. M.P. No.1167 of 2025 Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 which envisages that the motor vehicle, the owner of which fails to furnish the insurance policy covering the third-party risks, shall be sold off in public auction by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred. 11. Under such circumstances, both the orders dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Revision No.28 of 2024 and the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamtara in M.C.A. No.1230 of 2024 being not sustainable in law, are set aside. The petition of the petitioner for release of the Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10 CJ 0748 is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash in Nazarat of Civil Court, Jamtara. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle sought to be released, being the Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10 CJ 0748, is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the Nazarat of Civil Court, Jamtara and the learned ACJM, Jamtara is directed to release the Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10 CJ 0748 in favour of the petitioner upon producing the proof of deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with Nazarat of Civil Court, Jamtara. 13. It is made clear that Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner may be adjusted towards any compensation awarded by any Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in any claim case in connection with the accident in respect of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.36 of 2024 has been registered. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of June, 2025 AFR/ Saroj