JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.06.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.47 of 2021 arising out of Mango Olidih P.S. Case No.247 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.137 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for release of seized vehicle i.e. Tata Safari Storme bearing Registration No. JH05-CH-7722 has been rejected, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur. 3. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. The petitioner has filed petition for release of the vehicle before the learned court which was seized pursuant to the accident. She further submits that the vehicle is lying in open filed since 02.10.2020. She also submits that the learned court vide order dated 28.06.2021 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release of the said vehicle on the ground that no document in support of 2 Cr.M.P. No. 606 of 2022 the insurance of the vehicle of the said date has been furnished by the petitioner. She further submits that the learned court has not interpreted Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 in its correct perspective. She also 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. She further submits that Rule 6 of the said Rule has not been considered properly by the learned court. She submits that since the vehicle in question is lying in open field, no purpose will serve in keeping the vehicle deteriorated. 4. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as at the time of accident the vehicle was not insured. 5. For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 is quoted herein below: “6.(1). Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as at the time of accident the vehicle was not insured. 5. For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 is quoted herein 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.” 6. 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. 7. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, 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 at paragraphs 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.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 28.06.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.47 of 2021 arising out of Mango Olidih P.S. Case No.247 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.137 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur is, hereby, quashed. The vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on her undertaking on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below. The vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on her 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 an undertaking before the learned court that she will satisfy the compensation that may have been awarded or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident (iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (iv) She shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner. (v) She shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. 9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial Court deems fit and proper. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.