[2026:RJ-JD:3766]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10660/2025 Laxman Singh Alias Laxman Pal Singh S/o Arjun Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 101, Rajputo Ka Vas, Balda Village, Teh. And Dist. Sirohi, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7961/2025 Sumitra Vishnoi W/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o In Front Of Mahadev Temple, Village Tilwasni, Block Bilara, District Jodhpur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. S.h.o., Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9574/2025 Jagdish Chander Nayak S/o Ladulal Nayak, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sarthala, Tehsil Mandalgarh District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7579/2025 Udai Lal S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Trestha Gram Panchayat Soniyana, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor

2. The Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Department Of Mines And Geology, Kachi Basti, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, Mr. DS Gaur, Mr. RS Chouhan, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary Mr. Mohan Ram Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Jain, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Devendra Prajapat, AGC Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP &

Mr. HS Jodha, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

21/01/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mining Department jointly submit that the controversy involved in these matters is no more res integra in view of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.597/2024, decided on 19.05.2025), and the issue raised in these criminal miscellaneous petitions being squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the petitions can be be disposed of in terms of the judgment aforesaid. The relevant para of the judgment reads as follows :-

“6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments of the coordinate Benches of this Court particularly in the cases of Kishore Singh (supra), Narayan Gadri (supra) and M/s Mahadev Construction (supra), this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present batch of criminal misc. petitions has already been set to rest and is no longer res integra. Therefore, the petitions in hand are to be decided in accordance with the parameters laid down in these judgments.

8. Consequently, it is held that under the mining laws, the state authorities have the powers for initiating confiscation proceedings in relation to the vehicles seized for violation of the mining laws. It is once, the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the vehicle cannot be released on supurdaginama as prayed by few of the petitioners. However, the said vehicles can only be released on payment of penalty and compounding fees. Whereas, the vehicles qua which no confiscation proceedings have yet been commenced, the competent criminal Court can handover interim custody of the vehicles to its true owner as a criminal Court is not supposed to keep a vehicle detained until the confiscation proceedings are commenced and concluded by the mining department.

9. It is however, made clear that in the cases where criminal Court had handed over interim custody of the vehicles to its true owners on supurdaginama, the mining department shall be free to pass confiscation orders and take back the vehicles in accordance with law.

10. The present batch of criminal misc. petitions is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approac