JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, 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 07.08.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 38/2021 by which the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Nawadih P.S.Case No.20 of 2021, corresponding to G.R.Case No.245 of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat whereby the petitioner’s application for release of vehicle bearing registration No.JH09K-6978 and Trolly bearing registration No.JH09K-6979 has been rejected, was confirmed. 4. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Sukhdeo Karamkar has lodged the First Information Report alleging therein that on 12.02.2021 the son of the informant namely Srikant Karamkar aged about 21 years had gone to the house of the informant’s sister at Village Bandio by his motorcycle bearing registration No.JH01CA-5028 and at about 05.00 p.m in the evening the son of the informant had gone to village Mungo, Galodih from village Bandio with one Pradeep Karamkar. It is further alleged that during course of returning when the son of the informant reached at Village Mungo near Masjid at that time a tractor bearing registration no.JH09K-6978 was coming from opposite side with rash and negligence and the driver of the tractor dash the motorcycle due to which the son of the informant and one Pradeep Kumar have got injuries. Thereafter the injured persons have taken to hospital by the villagers but on the way the informant’s son died and Pradeep Karamkar has taken to BGH Hospital for treatment. 5. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application for release of his vehicle before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat for release of the vehicle bearing registration no.registration No.JH09K-6978 and Trolly bearing registration No.JH09K-6979 which was dismissed by order dated 25.03.2021. He submits that the petitioner is legally owner of the seized tractor and the insurance of the said vehicle was renewed on 16.02.2021 by the petitioner just after the alleged occurrence. He submits that the petitioner is legally owner of the seized tractor and the insurance of the said vehicle was renewed on 16.02.2021 by the petitioner just after the alleged occurrence. He submits that since the insurance was not there and considering Rule-6 of Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 the vehicle has not been released. 6. Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 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 as well as by the revisional 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. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the revisional order has rightly been passed. 8. For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 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. 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 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 dated 07.08.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 38/2021 by which the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Nawadih P.S.Case No.20 of 2021, corresponding to G.R.Case No.245 of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat was confirmed, is hereby quashed. Consequently, order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Nawadih P.S.Case No.20 of 2021 is also setaside. 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 an undertaking of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (iii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District- Bokaro (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. (vi) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. 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 [Cr.M.P. No.2297 of 2021] stands allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.