Under mining laws, vehicles can be released on supurdaginama by a criminal court if confiscation proceedings have not yet commenced. If proceedings have started, release is only permissible upon payment of penalty and compounding fees.

Order

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, challenging the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, District Bhilwara, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for release of the vehicle (Tractor-Trolly registration No. RJ-06-RD-5341), seized in connection with FIR No. 87/2026 registered at Police Station Badliyas, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 303(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, was allowed, however, certain conditions were imposed whereby the petitioner was ordered to deposit a bank guarantee of Rs.1,27,400/- and to furnish a bond of Rs.7,00,000/- subject to the condition that until the final disposal of the case the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (Tractor-Trolley) bearing the aforementioned registration number, which was unlawfully detained by Police Station Badliyas on false allegations of illegal transportation and storage of sand, and such information was subsequently forwarded to the Mining Department, Bhilwara; pursuant thereto, the competent authority of the Mining Department seized the petitioner’s vehicle and kept it stationed in an open premises at P.S. Badliyas, District Bhilwara.

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned court below by filing an application for release of the vehicle on supurdginama, which application was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2026 after hearing both the parties, however, certain onerous conditions were imposed, including the direction to deposit an amount as specified in the said order dated 30.04.2026. Being aggrieved by the imposition of such conditions in the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present miscellaneous petition before this Hon’ble Court.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for 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