[2025:JHHC:33692] 1 Cr. M.P. No.3540 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3540 of 2022 ------ Md. Nishar Ahmad, 32 years, S/O Md. Zabbar Khan, R/o Village- Maghakala, PO + P.S.- Jamua, District- Giridih. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, 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 the prayer to quash the order dated 24.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.06 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in connection with Taratand P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih dismissed the Criminal Revision. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the tempo which was involved in a road accident. The said tempo of the petitioner was not insured against third party risk. The petitioner filed the petition in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih for release of the vehicle which was rejected citing Rule- 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2019. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih which was [2025:JHHC:33692] 2 Cr. M.P. No.3540 of 2022 registered as Criminal Revision No.06 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, Giridih solicited the opinion of the petitioner as to whether he is ready and willing to pay compensation in favour of the victim of the case and ten days’ time was given to the petitioner but the petitioner did not respond to the same and consequent upon the same, the Criminal Revision has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 has observed that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period. It is next submitted that in the case of Bharath Mehta vs. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in AIR 2008 SC 1970, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the owner of the article should not suffer because the seized property remains unused for a long period. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that Rule- 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2019 envisages that when a motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risk, such vehicle can only be released if the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation but here in this case, even though the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has given ten days’ time to the petitioner to express his [2025:JHHC:33692] 3 Cr. M.P. No.3540 of 2022 willingness but the petitioner has not expressed his willingness within the period of time. Hence, there is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih by dismissing the said Criminal Revision. Therefore, 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 as has rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that Rule- 6(1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2019 envisages that no court shall release the motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injured or damage to property; when such vehicle is not covered by policy insurance against third party risk, 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. 7. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has neither furnished sufficient security nor expressed his willingness to pay compensation even after the opportunity for the same was given to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [2025:JHHC:33692] 4 Cr. M.P. No.3540 of 2022 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 19/11/2025