JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Deepankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.335 of 2020 in connection with Kolebira P.S.Case No.27 of 2020 whereby release of the vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-02GA-7710 has been rejected on the ground that the vehicle in question was not ensured at the time of accident. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petition filed by this petitioner for release in criminal revision which was found to be not maintainable and that is why the petitioner was permitted to convert it in Cr.M.P and pursuant thereto he has converted the said petition into Cr.M.P petition. 4. Mr. Deepankar, 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 since January, 2020. He submits that the learned trial court vide order dated 17.08.2020 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. Mr. Deepankar, 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. Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the revisional 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). Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the revisional 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 lying in open field and it will be deteriorated. Reference may be made to the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. Moreover, the vehicle in question is lying in open field and it will be deteriorated. Reference may be made to the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in 2002 10 SCC 283 wherein paras 17 and 18 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.335 of 2020 in connection with Kolebira P.S.Case No.27 of 2020 whereby release of the vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-02GA-7710 has been rejected, is hereby quashed. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) The petitioner shall give undertaking before the concerned court that he will satisfy the compensation that can be awarded or may be awarded in the claim case arising out of Kolebira P.S.Case No.27 of 2020. (iii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District- Simdega (Jharkhand). (ii) The petitioner shall give undertaking before the concerned court that he will satisfy the compensation that can be awarded or may be awarded in the claim case arising out of Kolebira P.S.Case No.27 of 2020. (iii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District- Simdega (Jharkhand). (iv) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (v) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner, and (vi) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. 11. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition [Cr.M.P.No.2341 of 2021] stands allowed and disposed of. 13. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.