Sanjay Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate (through V.C.) -----------

¶14

07/Dated: 08^th May, 2026

¶15

Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2

¶16

The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.34 of 2022 registered for the offence under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, whereby and whereunder an application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for release of his Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.JH-11M-8007 involved in this case, has been rejected.

¶17

2026:JHHC:13901

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.JH-11M8007, which met with an accident on 30.12.2021 at about 9:00 am and the informant’s father met with an accident by the above vehicle due to dash and negligent driving by its driver, namely, Gaffur @ Gaffur Ansari. It is further submitted that unfortunately, the vehicle of the petitioner was not insured at the relevant time of accident with any General Insurance Company. Therefore, in view of Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019, the learned trial court rejected the application for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in respect of the above accident, motor accident claim case was filed before the District Tribunal, Giridih. Vide M.A. Claim Case No.99 of 2022/CNR-JHGR01-007240-2022, which was referred to Lok-Adalat on the basis of joint compromise between the parties vide order dated 08.06.2024, the claimants, Meena Devi and Aashish Kumar Bhadani, the wife and son of the deceased respectively have received Rs.4.5 lakhs as compensation towards full and final satisfaction of their claim. Therefore, the condition imposed under Rule 6 has also been

¶19

Cr. Rev. No.234 of 2023

¶20

2

¶21

2026:JHHC:13901

¶22

complied with, hence, there is no legal impediment in releasing the said vehicle of the petitioner in his favour being registered owner of the same. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, allowing this revision.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has raised no objection and admitted the factum of receiving the compensation amount as full and final satisfaction.

¶24

I have gone through the impugned order, it appears that learned trial court has rejected the application for release of the vehicle of the petitioner relying upon Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rule, 2019, which reads as under:-

¶25

“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”.

¶26

It appears that subsequently passing the impugned order, the claim case pending between the parties has been satisfied and the claimants have received Rs.4.5 lakhs as full and final satisfaction

¶27

Cr. Rev. No.234 of 2023

¶28

3

¶29

towards compensation amount in respect of the said accidental death of the deceased.

¶30

In view of the above, later part of the Rule 6, which provides a law furnishing sufficient security by the registered owner of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident has already been complied with and there is no requirement of even furnishing any such security for release of the vehicle.

¶31

In view of the above discussion and reasons, this revision is allowed . Accordingly, Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.JH-11M8007 is directed to be released in favour of its registered owner on furnishing bond of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. four lakhs) with one sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with condition that the petitioner at the time releasing the vehicle shall produce all the relevant documents regarding vehicle and shall not change the color or physical feature of the vehicle or dispose of till the conclusion of the case and also produce the aforesaid vehicle before the concerned trial court as and when required during trial of the case in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.34 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No.1553 of 2022.

¶32

Cr. Rev. No.234 of 2023

¶33

4

¶34

2026:JHHC:13901

¶35