Seized vehicles must be released to owners unless confiscation proceedings are initiated; conditions include deposit of bank guarantees and ensuring no illegal use.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN

1. In view of the intertwined nature of the controversy involved, coupled with the identical factual matrix emerging in the present matters, and as the instant batch of petitions have been filed claiming identical reliefs with consent of the learned counsel representing various parties, the instant batch of petitions have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. It is made cautiously clear that the present judgment shall be applicable on mutatis mutandis basis on all the petitions connected herein, and for the sake of handiness with consent of learned counsel appearing for various parties SBCRLMP No. 419/2025 titled as Giriraj Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. is taken up as lead petition for factual references.

2. At the outset, this Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae. The Court acknowledges the painstaking efforts, research and submission made by the learned amicus curiae – Mr. Sandeep Pathak assisted by Ms. Jaya Pathak which have been of immense assistance in the just and proper adjudication of the present matter.

3. The primary issue assailing which the present petitions have been filed pertain to the seizure of vehicles on account of offences under various statues, inter alia, the Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Exports) Act, 1995, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It has been noted that in the matters at hand, orders passed by various Revisional authorities are assailed for the reason that the said orders are passed sans taking note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment have jot down the guidelines qua release of seized vehicles as when such vehicles are kept in the backyards of the Police Stations, they bear no fruitful results to either of the parties and rather turn into scrap.

4. During the course of hearing learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that as in the nitty- gritty of the lead petition SBCRLMP No. 419/2025 titled as Giriraj Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. it can be noted that the said petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge. No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision No. 41/2024 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3 in case no. 340/2024 arising out of FIR No. 459/2024 dated 17.06.2024 registered at Police Station Kho-Nagoriyan, District Jaipur City (East) for offences under sections 379 of IPC , 54/60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and Sections 4 /21 of the MMDR Act was confirmed. It was further contended that on the application moved by the petitioner, the learned Trial Court ordered that the applicant/petitioner deposits the total amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- imposed as per the panchnama for the said vehicle tractor with trolley in the concerned department and after depositing the said amount, presents the receipt in the Court concerned. Consecutively, if the applicant presents a supurdaginama of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a bail bond of the same amount and gets it confirmed that he will keep the said vehicle safe, and present the same when summoned by the Court, then the seize