[2026:RJ-JD:13459]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2262/2026 Ramraghunath S/o Shri Dunger Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Berawa, Tadas, District Nagaur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aziz Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/03/2026

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 126/2026 arising out of challan No. 0718829 dated 22.02.2026 registered at Police Station Gotan, District Nagaur for the offence under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 BNSS for release of the seized vehicle i.e. SIGNA 3525 TK 8X4 Tipper bearing registration No. RJ-13-GB-9767 on supurdagi came to be allowed subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing an amount of Rs.5,24,000/- as assessed by the Mining Department.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and has placed on record all relevant documents pertaining to ownership. It is further submitted that though the learned trial court has allowed the application for release of the vehicle, the condition requiring furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing an amount of Rs.5,24,000/- is onerous and travels beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 503 BNSS. It is contended that the petitioner is ready to furnish supurdaginama and comply with all other conditions, however, insistence on deposit or bank guarantee of the assessed amount, which pertains to alleged mining dues, is unjustified at this stage.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

4. Having considered the submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and the learned trial court has already ordered release of the vehicle on supurdagi. The grievance raised in the present petition is confined to the condition requiring furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing an amount of Rs.5,24,000/- as assessed by the Mining Department. It is not shown from the material placed on record that any proceedings for confiscation have been initiated in accordance with law. The amount assessed by the Mining Department represents an alleged liability which is required to be determined in appropriate proceedings and cannot be enforced as a pre-condition for interim custody of the vehicle. The object of proceedings under Section 503 BNSS is only to secure proper custody of the property during pendency of proceedings and not to effect recovery of alleged dues. In such circumstances, insistence on furnishing a bank guarantee or deposit of the said amount at this stage cannot be sustained.

5. This Court is guided by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein it has been observed that seized vehicles should not be allowed to remain idle in police custody and should be released on appropriate terms and conditions. It has also been consistently held that the conditions imposed for such release must be reasonable and cannot partake the character of a punitive or recovery measure.

6. In view of the above, and considering that the vehicle has already been directed to be released on supurdagi and the petitioner is the registered owner, this Court deems it just and appropriate to waive the condition requiring furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing an amount of Rs.5,24,000/- while maintaining the remaining conditions imposed by the learned trial court.

7. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is part