[2025:JHHC:29558] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2483 of 2025 ------ Om Prakash Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Lalan Choudhary, R/o Vill- Ward No. 31, Balgobind Bigha, P.O. & P.S.- Dehri on Sone, Dist- Rohtash, Bihar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ------ 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the portion of the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2024 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has directed that the Swift Dzire vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10AV 1535 seized in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No.129 of 2024 be released upon furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/- valid for a period of 10 years and other conditions. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the said Swift Dzire Vehicle which while being driven in a rash and negligent manner, involved in accident resulting in death of Jitendra Kumar and injury to Ramjit [2025:JHHC:29558] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 Yadav. In respect of which, Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 has been registered. The said Swift Dzire vehicle of the petitioner was not having any third party insurance coverage on the date of occurrence. The petitioner filed a petition for release of the vehicle. The same was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra vide order dated 03.08.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.56 of 2024. The same was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra vide order dated 13.12.2024 who ordered for release of the said Swift Dzire vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/-. 4. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rohit Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.4187 of 2023 dated 03.04.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in that case relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 para-41 of 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.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle seized by police for being involved in an accident, 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. Hence, it is [2025:JHHC:29558] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 submitted that the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/- be modified as there is no rhyme or reason for imposition of onerous condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/- for release of the Swift Dzire vehicle, the ex-showroom price of which is about Rs.8,00,000/-. 5. Learned AAG-III appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 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 Vs. 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. A plain reading of Rule 6 of the 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 [2025:JHHC:29558] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 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)” Makes it crystal clear that the said Rule has not put a total ban on release of the vehicle by police, which has no insurance cover for a third party risk; rather it has envisioned that 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. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra have failed to act in accordance with Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and has unnecessarily allowed the vehicle to be kept under 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 [2025:JHHC:29558] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 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 neither the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra without giving 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, has rejected the petition for release of the said vehicle. 10. 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 than a year ago, neither the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra nor the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra 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, rather allowed diminishing the value of the vehicle by leaving it to be kept under open sky thereby frustrating the very purpose of Rule-6(2) of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019. 11. 11. So far as the imposition of the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/- is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has committed a grave illegality in imposing the condition of such high amount. True it is that it is the mandate of law that the owner should be directed to offer security to satisfy the award that may ultimately be passed but when the ex-showroom price of the vehicle is Rs.8,00,000/- and upon the failure of security amount, the vehicle is to be sold off in public auction, so, certainly auction sale of such a [2025:JHHC:29558] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 vehicle cannot fetch a price more than Rs.8,00,000/-. Under such imposition of the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,00,000/-, in the considered opinion of this Court, is an onerous condition. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2024 is not sustainable in law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the same be modified. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2024 is modified and the petition of the petitioner for release of the Swift Dzire vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10AV 1535 seized in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No.129 of 2024 is allowed subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.8,00,000/- with two solvent sureties undertaking to pay the compensation to be awarded in any motor accident claims case arising out of the said accident. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle sought to be released is directed to furnish the said indemnity bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.8,00,000/- undertaking to produce the said Swift Dzire vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10AV 1535 as and when directed by the court in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra and also for paying the amount to compensation, if any awarded in compensation case and upon the petitioner furnishing such indemnity bond of Rs.8,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, is directed to release the said Swift Dzire vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10AV 1535 in favour of the petitioner upon his undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial court or any other condition that may be imposed by the learned trial court. [2025:JHHC:29558] 7 Cr. M.P. No.2483 of 2025 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of September, 2025 AFR/ Saroj