order

This Order shall govern all the cases the particulars of which have been given in Schedule-A appended to this order.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Mr. Dushyant Jain, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Moti Lal Sharma, Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit, Mr. Manish K Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Jain, Ms. Priya Pareek, Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia, Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain, Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Mr. Sanjay Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

12/01/2021 All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for release of Dumper/Truck/Trailer, which were seized, while doing illegal mining. The details of the concerned vehicle are being shown in the annexed Schedule-”A” to this order as per their respective petitions.

The release of vehicle has been examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, which has been followed by this Court in Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2019 along with connected cases decided on 3.2.2020 and Nathulal Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020 decided on 01.10.2020. In the case of Asharam (supra), the Court has held as under:

“11. In the aforesaid background, this Court finds that while it is true that a vehicle should not be allowed to get rusted in Police Station and the same ought to be released for its better maintenance and proper use. Several suggestions were given out by the Officers of the Transport Department as well as by the Mining Department for laying down the conditions before release of the seized tractors, trolleys and vehicles being used for illegal mining activities.

12. In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.76/2014 decided on 23.7.2015 along with connected matters by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is found to be involved in committing violation of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and carrying forest produce, the same cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner of the vehicle, if proceedings of confiscation have already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shoukat Khan Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016, decided on

22.2.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given, if proceedings for confiscation have been initiated. In Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018 along with connected matters by the Division Bench where a reference was made to the Division Bench on account of different opinion relating to the power of release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has held as under:

“Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in Ramswaroop’s case, which was later followed in Mala Ram’s, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop’s case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the C