[2025:JHHC:15530] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2166 of 2024 ------ Shivnath Singh @ Shivenath Singh, aged about 46 years, son of Munshi Singh, resident of Village Karri, P.O. Bishrampur, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey 2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr. Revision No.61 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Application which was filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in Ranka P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 by which the learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for release of his seized three-wheeler vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 03AC 3099 and the prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate, Garhwa in the said Ranka P.S. Case No.41 of 2022. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the said tempo belonging to the petitioner dashed the motorcycle of Sandeep Kumar Prajapati causing serious injury to him resulting in death of Sandeep Kumar Prajapati during the course [2025:JHHC:15530] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 of his treatment of the injury sustained in the said accident. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Ranka P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 and took up investigation of the case and during the investigation, the said vehicle of the petitioner has been seized by the police. The undisputed fact remains that on the date of accident, the said three-wheeler vehicle of the petitioner was not insured, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Garhwa rejected the prayer for release of the said vehicle vide his said order dated 17.08.2022. The Revisional Court being the Sessions Judge, Garhwa held that there is no illegality committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa rejecting the prayer for the petitioner for release of the vehicle and dismissed the criminal application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle being the tempo concerned is under the open sky within the premises of the police station, hence, the said commercial vehicle of the petitioner will lose its utility and the condition of the vehicle will deteriorate, diminishing its value. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future and it is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition to be called for release of the vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that keeping in view the fact that since the vehicle was not having any insurance, so no illegality has been committed by either the learned Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge, in refusing to release the vehicle. [2025:JHHC:15530] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long time and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking of bond and guarantee as well as security for the return of the vehicle, if required at any point of time that can be ordered to be produced. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. It is certainly not desirable that a vehicle seized by the police will be kept under open sky when there is no chance of the trial being concluded within any reasonable time. 8. Learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the criminal revision has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Devi & Another Vs. Pawan Kumar & Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 9936- 9937 of 2016 dated 13.09.2018 as also the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607. 9. So far as the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Devi & Another Vs. Pawan Kumar & Others (supra) is concerned, the said order was not passed in a matter of release of vehicle by police rather the same was passed in a case relating to Motor Vehicle Accidents Compensation Claim and the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered ways and [2025:JHHC:15530] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 means to ensure smooth payment of compensation to the victims of accident from vehicles not insured with third party insurance risk at the time of accident vis-à-vis their release by courts. It is relevant to quote para-41 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others (supra) which was also quoted in the case of Usha Devi & Another Vs. Pawan Kumar & Others (supra) which reads as under:- “41. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf.” 10. In the case of Usha Devi & Another Vs. Pawan Kumar & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred to the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 relating to prohibition against release of motor vehicles involved in accident. In the State of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 739 dated 23.07.2019, a pari materia rule being Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 has been framed, Rule 6 of 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 [2025:JHHC:15530] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 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)” Even in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has not put a total ban on release of vehicle seized by police which has no insurance cover, for a third party risk rather, it has envisioned 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. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa and the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa have failed to act in accordance with Rule-6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and have unnecessarily allowed the three wheeler vehicle of the petitioner to be kept under open sky and thereby diminishing its value. 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 [2025:JHHC:15530] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 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. But as already indicated above; neither the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa nor the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa has given any opportunity to the owner of the vehicle to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay the compensation amount that may be awarded, in any claim case arising out of the accident. 12. It is crystal clear from the facts of the case that though the seized vehicle allegedly involved in the accident has been seized about more three years ago, neither the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa nor the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa has taken any steps to ensure compliance of Rule-6(2) of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents 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. 13. Under such circumstances, both the orders dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr. Revision No.61 of 2022 and the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate, Garhwa in the said Ranka P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 being not sustainable in law are set aside, and the petition of the petitioner for release of the tempo bearing Registration No. JH 03AC 3099 is allowed subject to the petitioner furnishing security for compensation to be awarded by any Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in connection with claim case arising out of Ranka P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 and furnish an indemnity bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.2,00,000/- each to [2025:JHHC:15530] 7 Cr. M.P. No.2166 of 2024 the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa or its successor court; to pay the Compensation to be awarded in any compensation Case. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner who is the registered owner of vehicle sought to be released, being the tempo bearing Registration No. JH 03AC 3099, is directed to furnish an undertaking to the aforesaid effect along with the indemnity bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.2,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa or its successor court to pay compensation that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of such accident and in case, such undertaking with indemnity bond is furnished by the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa or its successor court is directed to release the tempo bearing Registration No. JH 03AC 3099 in favour of the petitioner, upon his undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial court or by the investigating officer of the case and any other conditions that may be imposed by the learned trial court. 15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of June, 2025 AFR/ Saroj