Allowed

Satrughan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an order rejecting a prayer for the release of a seized commercial truck involved in a fatal accident. The Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing an indemnity bond with adequate security.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.02.2021 was quashed, the earlier order dated 21.10.2020 was set aside, and the vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner upon furnishing an indemnity bond with

Satrughan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 608 of 2021

¶3

Shatrughan Singh, son of Uma Shankar Singh, aged about 72 years, resident of Mohalla Singh Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Khusra Bazar, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

…… Opposite Party

¶8

---------

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate

¶11

5/Dated: 20/10/2021

¶12

Heard Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

¶13

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 05.02.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 14/2020 arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No. 110 of 2020, by which prayer of the petitioner for release of truck was rejected.

¶14

The F.I.R. was instituted against the driver of the Truck bearing Reg. No. JH-09S-2109 alleging therein that on 29.08.2020 at about 6.30 the motorcycle of the nephew of the informant met with an accident with the said truck near Anand Hotel, Henjala in which the nephew of the informant died at the spot.

¶15

Mr. Prabhat Singh, 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. He submits that the learned trial court vide order dated 21.10.2020

¶16

¶17

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. He submits that against the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2020 which was rejected vide order dated 05.02.2021.

¶18

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 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.

¶19

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 as the revisional order has rightly been passed.

¶20

For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 is quoted here-in-below:

¶21

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.

¶22

(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.”

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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 :-

¶26

“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.

¶27

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 vehic le should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

¶28

In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 05.02.2021

¶29

passed in Criminal Revision No. 14/2020 arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No. 110 of 2020 by which the prayer of the petitioner for release of truck was rejected, is hereby quashed. Consequently, order dated 21.10.2020 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 836/2020 arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No. 110/2020, is also set aside. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:-

¶30

¶31

i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of

¶32

the court below.

¶33

ii. One of the surety must be resident and owner of a commercial

¶34

vehicle of District-Lohardaga (Jharkhand).

¶35

iii. That the petitioner shall not sell, mortgage or transfer the

¶36

ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner.

¶37

iv. He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle

¶38

in any manner.

¶39

v. He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial

¶40

Court.

¶41

The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper.

¶42

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and

¶43

disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶44

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶45

Satyarthi/

Satrughan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satrughan Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudeep Alok Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karnataka Antibiotic And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Thr Its Md Sri Krishna Mohan Prasad And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shankar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand