Sanjay Kumar Mandal Alias Ajay Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2025:JHHC:13017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar Mandal @ Ajay Kumar Mandal, aged about 28 years, s/o Mitlal Mandal, resident of 33, High School Road, Pachamba, Near Hanuman, Shanti Nagar, Jaridih, P.O.-Pachamba, P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….

¶6

Opp. Party

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.

¶10

By the Court:-

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 144 of 2024, whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the commercial vehicle being Tractor along with Trailer bearing Registration No. JH-11-Z-2732 as the same was not insured at the time of occurrence.

¶13

The brief fact of the case is that the said Tractor and Trailer was

¶14

seized by the police in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 144 of 2024, involving the offences punishable under Section 281,

¶15

1

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

¶17

(2025:JHHC:13017)

¶18

125(a) and 125(b) of the B.N.S., 2023; as the same was involved in an accident causing injuries to the victim. The I.O. of the case on being asked by the court, intimated that the vehicle was not required for the purpose of investigation and on considering the fact that there was no valid insurance of the vehicle in question on the date of occurrence and Rule 6(1) of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 do not prohibit the release of the vehicle not insured but it provides that if the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation, that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of such accidents, such vehicle can be released. It is next submitted that the vehicle in question has been kept under the open sky which is likely to diminish its value with passage of time. It is next submitted that there is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future and the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss because of the seizure of his vehicle and is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court below. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal

¶21

2 Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

¶22

(2025:JHHC:13017)

¶23

miscellaneous petition and submits that since the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, hence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has rightly rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶24

¶25

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, that it is of no use, to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long time and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for the return of the vehicle, if required, at any point of time that can be ordered to be produced.

¶26

Now coming to the facts of the case, it is undisputed that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the I.O. of the case does not require the vehicle for the purpose of investigation. It is certainly not desirable that a vehicle seized by the police will be kept under open sky when there is no chance of the trial being concluded within any reasonable time.

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. , reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 para-41 of which reads as under:-

¶28

“41. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount,

¶29

3

¶30

Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

¶31

(2025:JHHC:13017)

¶32

adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶33

has held that where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle

¶34

seized by police for being involved in an accident, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident.

¶35

A plain reading of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 which reads as under:-

¶36

6. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.-

¶37

(1) No court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or 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.

¶38

(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 circumstance 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. (Emphasis supplied)

¶39

4

¶40

Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

¶41

(2025:JHHC:13017)

¶42

It is crystal clear that the said Rule has not put a total ban on release of vehicle seized by police which has no insurance cover for a third party risk rather it has envisioned that as a condition precedent for release of seized vehicle involved in accident, such security or cash deposit is to be made by the owner of the vehicle within a period of three months and if within a period of three months, the owner of the vehicle fails to deposit the security/cash amount, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and the sale proceeds be held in deposit until the claim case is disposed of.

¶43

Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has failed to act in accordance with Rule -6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and has unnecessarily allowed the vehicle to be kept under open sky and thereby diminishing its value. As already indicated above, Rule -6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 mandates that if an owner of the vehicle, even if the vehicle is involved in an accident causing death of or bodily injury to any person or injury to any property, has no insurance covering the third-party risks, if otherwise, the petitioner seeking the release of the vehicle is entitled to get custody of the vehicle as per law, the absence of the insurance policy covering the third-party risks will not be an impediment for release of the vehicle but the rider is in

¶44

such a case is that the registered owner must be asked to furnish

¶45

5 Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

¶46

(2025:JHHC:13017)

¶47

sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in any claim case arising out of such accident but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has not given any opportunity to the owner of the vehicle to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay the compensation amount that may be awarded, in any claim case arising out of the accident. It is crystal clear from the facts of the case that though the seized vehicle allegedly involved in the accident has been seized about more than six months, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has not taken any steps to ensure compliance of Rule 6(2) of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, which envisages that the motor vehicle, the owner of which fails to furnish the insurance policy covering the third-party risks, shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred.

¶48

Under such circumstances, the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 144 of 2024 being not sustainable in law is set aside and the petition of the petitioner for release of the Tractor along with Trailer bearing Registration No. JH-11-Z-2732 is allowed subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties undertaking to pay the compensation to be awarded in any motor accident claims case arising out of the said accident.

¶49

6

¶50

Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

¶51

(2025:JHHC:13017)

¶52

Accordingly, the petitioner who is the registered owner of vehicle sought to be released is directed to furnish the said indemnity bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.2,00,000/- and also undertaking to produce the said Tractor and Trailer as and when directed by the court in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih and upon his furnishing such indemnity bond with two solvent sureties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is directed to release the Tractor along with Trailer bearing Registration No. JH-11-Z-2732 in favour of the petitioner upon his undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned trial court or by any other court and any other condition that may be imposed by the learned trial court.

¶53

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶54

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶55

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 1^st May, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶56

7

¶57

Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar Mandal Alias Ajay Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Mandal Alias Ajay Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarfaraj Shaikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshor Daga Alias Keshor Gopaldas Daga Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Diwakar Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suraj Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shivam Bahadur Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand