The court affirmed that the decision to release seized vehicles under mining laws rests solely with the Magistrate, emphasizing discretion and adherence to legal standards.

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 28/03/2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025 BY THE COURT:-

1. These batch of miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging the orders passed by the respective courts below whereby directions were issued for the release of vehicles seized by the police in connection with alleged contravention of mining laws. The petitions also assail the rejection of the State’s prayer for imposing a monetary condition as a prerequisite for release of the said vehicles.

2. The learned Magistrate, while dealing with the release applications, has prudently considered the facts and legal position applicable in such cases. Upon a reappraisal of the records and the impugned orders, this Court finds no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under its supervisory or revisional jurisdiction.

3. It is a settled legal proposition that the power to pass interim orders regarding the custody and release of property, including vehicles, during the pendency of investigation or trial, lies within the domain and discretion of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such discretion, when exercised judicially and within the framework of law, ought not to be interfered with lightly.

4. Furthermore, the release of vehicles in the present matters has been directed only upon furnishing of adequate security and custody bonds, and is expressly made subject to the outcome of the inquiry, investigation, or trial. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the prosecution or the State authorities.

5. This Court has had occasion to consider identical issues in a batch of similar petitions being SBCRLMP No.2130/2021 (State of Raj. Through PP Vs. Kesar Singh) alongwith nine petitions decided by this Court on 17.06.2025 wherein the following order has been passed:

1. These batch of Misc. Petitions have been filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the orders dated 15.07.2020, 04.09.2020, 29.07.2020, 14.08.2020, 05.09.2020 & 09.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal/ Criminal Revision Nos. 22/2020, 27/2020, 41/2020, 28/2020, 36/2020, 37/2020, 42/2020, 39/2020, 26/2020 & 41/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara/Sessions Judge Rajsamand, whereby he allowed the revision petitions moved on behalf of the vehicle owners, directing release of the seized vehicles in their favour.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned orders as well as the material on record. The matter, though limited in scope, involves certain legal niceties.

2.1. The vehicles belonging to the respondents- accused were seized by the concerned police station on allegations of violating penal provisions under the Mining Laws. It is well settled that an application seeking release of a seized vehicle may be filed either by the registered owner or by a person best entitled to possess the vehicle. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.

2.1. It is pertinent to note that such property, though movable in nature, is still a national asset, and cannot be left to deteriorate in the open parking areas of police stations for an indefinite period. Proceedings under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act can be duly undertaken in accordance with the procedure established by law and rules framed thereunder.

2.2. The grant of interim custody of a vehicle to its registered owner is a discretionary power vested in the criminal Courts under Sections 451 to 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code . If any dues or penalties are leviable against the respondents, the State authorities are not precl