Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14116
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mukesh Rajpurohit, J
Raju Lal Mali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5758/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
A vehicle seized for illegal mining cannot be released without initiation of confiscation proceedings, but interim custody may be granted if no such proceedings exist.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2017 - Rule 54, Rule 60 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4/21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Claim for release of vehicle seized for illegal mining - Court ruled that vehicle cannot be released without initiation of confiscation proceedings; if no confiscation, interim custody may be granted on conditions. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Legal principles - Regarding the release of seized properties, court observes that a vehicle should not be kept detained indefinitely when confiscation proceedings are not initiated, aligning with previous judgments. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought release of a vehicle seized for alleged illegal mining. The court examined submissions regarding the legal basis for seizure and conditions for potential release.
Findings of Court:
Under mining laws, confiscation procedures must precede other release requests. If proceedings not initiated, court may grant interim custody.
Issues: The court addressed whether the vehicle's detention was lawful without ongoing confiscation processes.
Ratio Decidendi: Under mining regulations, state must initiate confiscation for vehicles involved in illegal activities; otherwise, interim release is permissible.
Result: Petition allowed for interim custody under conditions.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles regarding the release and custody of vehicles seized in connection with illegal mining are as follows:
-
Confiscation Proceedings are Mandatory for Release:
A vehicle seized for illegal mining cannot be released without the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the relevant mining laws. If such proceedings have not been initiated, the vehicle must remain detained, and its release is not permissible (!) . -
Interim Custody is Possible without Confiscation Proceedings:
If confiscation proceedings have not been initiated, the court may grant interim custody of the vehicle to the owner. This interim custody is subject to certain conditions, such as furnishing a bank guarantee of the current value of the vehicle and ensuring the vehicle is used lawfully during the interim period (!) (!) . -
Procedural Formalities and Court Orders:
The competent criminal court has the authority to hand over interim custody to the vehicle owner, but only if no confiscation proceedings are ongoing. Once confiscation proceedings are initiated and a confiscation order is passed, the vehicle cannot be released on supurdaginama (bail or temporary release) (!) . -
Legal Limitations on Detention Duration:
Vehicles should not be detained indefinitely when confiscation proceedings are pending or have not been initiated. Detaining vehicles without proper legal procedures can cause deterioration of the property and is contrary to legal principles (!) (!) . -
Authority of the Mining Department:
The mining authorities are responsible for initiating confiscation proceedings in cases of illegal mining. The criminal court's role is to facilitate interim custody but not to delay the vehicle’s return when no confiscation process exists (!) . -
Procedure for Release:
When confiscation proceedings are not yet initiated, the owner may approach the criminal court for interim custody. The court may grant this upon the owner providing a guarantee and surety, until the confiscation process is completed or the case is resolved (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal framework emphasizes that the initiation of confiscation proceedings is a prerequisite for the permanent release of seized vehicles involved in illegal mining. In the absence of such proceedings, courts may grant interim custody to the owner under appropriate conditions, ensuring the property is not kept detained arbitrarily or indefinitely.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner aggrieved by vehicle seizure. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding vehicle's illegal use and conditions for release. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judgment outcome permitting interim vehicle custody. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. legal principles on vehicle custody under mining laws. (Para 6 , 8) |
Order
08/08/2025
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Court below for release of vehicles in question, which has been seized by the respondent for violation of mining laws, on supurdaginama. By the said order, the prayer for release of vehicle has either been rejected or has been allowed by putting onerous conditions of depositing the amount of penalty and compounded fee as levied by mining officer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle in question has been seized by the respondent for alleged illegal mining activity as per the provision of Rule 54 read with Rule 60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2017 and Section 4 /21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . It is further submitted that the petitioner being registered owner of the vehicle in question is entitled to get back the possession of the seized vehicle. There is no other person claiming supurdgi over the said vehicle. It is contended that the vehicle in question may be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner on interim custody keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v.
State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the vehicle in question was found involved in transportation of illegal minerals, particularly, bajri/river sand. It is submitted that the vehicle has been seized by the competent Government Official on finding that it is being used for illegal purposes and in case, it is released on supurdaginama, the possibility of offending vehicle being used in illegal activities of like nature or otherwise cannot be ruled out.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the controversy involved in the present case has already been set to rest by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3595/2021) and Narayan Gadri v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6304/2021) . The relevant portion of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in Narayan Gadri (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“10. From the record of the case file herein, it is not clear if in the present case confiscation proceedings have been initiated under Rule 54(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. In the premise, guided by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court and, taking a harmonious view thereof, the petition in hand is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to verify if the confiscation proceedings have indeed been initiated qua the offending vehicle and if the answer is in affirmative, convey the status thereof in writing to the petitioner.
11. In case, the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, the vehicle shall then be released only on payment of penalty and compounding fee, in terms of ratio rendered in Kishore Singh. However, if it is found that no confiscation proceedings have yet commenced and it is merely an appeal is pendency against the penalty/compounding order passed by mining officer, liberty in that case is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Court by filing a fresh application for release of vehicle on Superdari. Upon doing so, the same shall be released on furnishing a bank guarantee of an amount equivalent to the current value of impounded vehicle. Current value shall be as per the satisfaction of the learned competent Court dealing with the fresh application, if and when filed. Other
