Judgment :

BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.

1. All these miscellaneous petitions have been preferred against the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrates, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking release of the seized vehicles/machines were rejected or allowed on condition of depositing cost of minerals, compounding fee and the amount imposed by the NGT (hereinafter referred to as statutory amount/penalty). The prayer of the applicants for release of the vehicles/machines only on personal security or Supardginama, without payment of the aforesaid charges, was also declined.

2. Looking to the fact that all the petitions raise a common question of law, and the grievance and relief sough by the petitioner is identical, the petitions were heard together and reserved, and are being decided by this common judgment. The particulars of the petitions are provided in the Schedule annexed, the same shall be treated a part and parcel of the instant judgment.

3. The vehicles/machines (hereafter referred as vehicles) of different categories in question were allegedly found to be involved in illegal mining/transportation of illegally mined minerals, mostly bajri/sand, and were seized by the police authorities, mining authorities and in some cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. In most of the cases, the Mining Authorities/Police Authorities, while seizing the vehicles, registered FIRs under Section 303(2) of the BNS read with Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and in some cases under 61 (2), 112 (2) BNS as well, thereby initiating criminal prosecution against the accused persons. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicles were seized under Section 207 thereof. Simultaneously, proceedings for confiscation of the vehicles were also initiated by the authorities of the mining department under Rules 54 and 60 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (MMCR Rules).

4. The learned Judicial Magistrates called for reports from the Mining Department, wherein it was clearly stated that proceedings have been initiated by the Department under Rule 54 and 60, and that the cost of mineral, compounding fee and NGT compensation amount (statutory dues/penalty) is due and had not been deposited. In such circumstances, relying upon the judgments of this Court in Jitendra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 1161/2020, decided on 01.12.2021), Narayan Gadri vs State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 6304/2021, decided on 02.07.2024), Kishore Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 3595/2021, decided on 15.09.2021), Chaina Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 597/2024, decided on 19.05.2025) and Giriraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 419/2025, decided on 06.10.2025), as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad (SLP (Crl.) No.106-107/2021, decided on 11.07.2023), the applications were rejected on account of the proceedings having been initiated by the mining department, and the statutory amounts/penalty having not been deposited by the applicants/petitioners. In other cases it has been allowed subject to the condition of deposition of statutory dues of the department or active bank guarantee of equivalent amount. The other general conditions of furnishing photographs and undertakings were also imposed. In few cases, revision petitions have been filed, which have been dismissed by the revisional court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued the matters at length, raising several questions of fact as well as law, and contended that making the deposit of the statutory amounts/ penalty a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicles is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. It was submitted that no confiscation proceedings against the vehicles of the petitioners can be undertaken until conclusion of the criminal prosecution. Further,