Order

1. The petitioner is present-in-person before this Court.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, challenging the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kotri, District Bhilwara, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for release of the vehicle (dumper bearing registration No. RJ 06-GD-8039, Tata Motors Ltd. Signa 4830 TK BSVI 10X4HD 29BX) seized in connection with FIR No. 28/2026 registered at Police Station Paroli, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 125, 281, 303(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was allowed, however, certain conditions were imposed and the petitioner was ordered to deposit a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the dumper in question was seized by the Mining Department. An application for release of the said vehicle was duly filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, which came to be allowed, however, certain conditions were imposed therein. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the said conditions, the present petition has been preferred before this Court.

4. At the outset, the petitioner submits that the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the ratio given in the judgment rendered in Chaina Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 597/2024), decided on 19.05.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

“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 approach the competent Court for filing fresh applications for release of their vehicle. The competent Court shall decided the fresh applications, if filed, in accordance with the observations made by this Court in para 8 of the judgment.

11. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

12. A copy of this order be placed in each file.”

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the Mining Department have vehemently opposed the petition, however, they are not in a position to dispute that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio given in Chaina Ram (supra)

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 is set aside and the insta