JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent the matter has been heard on merit. 3. Petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of order dated 12.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1645 of 2021 arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 438 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby petition for release of Tata Magic vehicle bearing Reg. No. JH 24B-8523 in favour of petitioner, has been rejected. 4. The F.I.R. was instituted stating therein that when the informant along with his nephew was going to Telmochho on motorcycle bearing Registration No. Jh-10CA-6877 and reached near Khutri Chowk, one Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-24-B8523 being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle due to which the nephew of the informant sustained grievous injury and later on he died. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of Tata Magic vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-24B-8523. The petitioner has filed an application for release of his vehicle before the learned trial court which was seized pursuant to accident. He submits that the investigating officer has submitted report that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle. It has been alleged that on the date of accident the seized vehicle was not covered with any insurance policy and on that ground petition for release was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the concerned court looking into Rule 6(1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that Rule 6 (1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019 provides that vehicle can be released when 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 properly considered by the learned trial court. He submits that, Rule 6 of the said Rule has not been properly considered by the learned 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. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the impugned order has rightly been passed. 8. 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. 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.” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order 12.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1645 of 2021 arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 438 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby petition for release of Tata Magic vehicle bearing Reg. No. JH 24B-8523 in favour of petitioner has been rejected, is hereby set aside. Petition No. 1645 of 2021 arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 438 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby petition for release of Tata Magic vehicle bearing Reg. No. JH 24B-8523 in favour of petitioner has been rejected, is hereby set aside. 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. One of the surety must be resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District-Bokaro (Jharkhand). iii. That the petitioner shall not sell, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. iv. He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner. v. He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. vi. The petitioner shall 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. 12. The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.