JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure P3), whereby application filed under Section 451 CrPC for release of his vehicle, moved by the petitioner, was rejected by the Id. Judicial Magistrate, Naraingarh, District Ambala, subject to payment of fine in case FIR No.431 dated 19.08.2023 under Sections 21(1) and 21(4)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) 1957 [for short 'the Act'] and Section 379 of IPC, at Police Station Naraingarh, Ambala.

2. Ld. counsel contends that petitioner is owner of the tractor trolley No.HR-04J-2719, which has been impounded during investigation of FIR No.431 dated 19.08.2023 under Sections 21(1) and 21(4)(A) of the Act and Section 379 of IPC, at Police Station Naraingarh, Ambala; that petitioner moved an application to release the vehicle on superdari, but the same was rejected by making it conditional to pay the fine as imposed under Section 21(4A) of the Act read with Rule 104 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 [for short 'the Rules'], Ld. counsel contends that because of the seizure of the vehicle, petitioner is suffering great financial loss, as the tractor trolley in question is his only source of income. It is further contended that no such condition can be imposed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. which provides for passing appropriate orders for custody of the property pending conclusion of enquiry at trial. Learned counsel also refers to "Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat" 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 380; "Ikrarn v. The State of Rajasthan" S.L.R. (Criminal) 4797-4799/2023 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.05.2023; and CRM-M-9846-2024 titled as "Sukhchain v. State of Haryana" decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.02.2024.

3. Ld. State counsel has opposed the bail petition by pointed out that by way of the impugned order dated 21.12.2023, the Court of Id. Magistrate not only rejected the application of the petitioner to release the tractor trolley in question of superdari, but at the same time allowed the application of the Mining department so as to confiscate the vehicle till recovery of the fine amount. Ld. State counsel also pointed out that though by way of the present petition, petitioner has challenged that part of the order, whereby his application for superdari has been rejected but has not challenged the order confiscating the vehicle. Still further, it is contended that vehicle of the petitioner was found to be involved in illegal mining for the third time and that as per the relevant Rules, the vehicle can be released only on payment of fine and in case of non-payment of the same, the same is liable to be confiscated. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Id. Magistrate, the application of the department for confiscation was allowed. Ld. State counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the Id. Magistrate and so, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the record.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra), following observation was made by Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"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."

6. In Ikram v. The State of Rajasthan (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was shown as a witness and not as an accused in the charge-sheet but his truck involved in the incident was seized. The prayer for release of the truck was granted requiring the petitioner to furni