Jharkhand High Court
Ashish Ranjan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 108 of 2024
Ashish Ranjan, Aged about 28 years, S/o Birendra
Yadav, R/o Sakrigali, Mangal Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-
Taljhari, District-Sahibganj.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. and
P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj.
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Borio Police Station, P.O.
and P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III.
------
04/ 05.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents-State.
2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the order
dated 04.01.2024, passed in M.C.A. Case No. 1305 of 2023, whereby
the release of the truck of the petitioner bearing registration number JH-
18-G-9141, has been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class Sahibganj, in connection with Borio P.S. Case No. 32 of 2023,
pending in the said court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration number
JH-18-G-9141. He submits that the said vehicle was seized on the
allegation of illegal transportation of stone chips. He further submits
that the learned court has rejected the prayer for release on the ground
that the insurance policy and registration of the said vehicle have
expired and further the I.O. has stated that so far investigation is
concerned, the same vehicle is required. He also submits that for
renewal of the insurance and registration, the vehicle is required to be
produced before the competent authority. He submits that the vehicle is
commercial in nature and if the same is kept in open space, the said
vehicle will be destroyed day by day. He submits that during the period
of seizure the insurance lapsed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State
submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order, as the said
vehicle in question is involved in transportation of illegal stone chips,
as such, no interference is required.
5. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court
has gone through the materials available on record and finds that
admittedly, the minerals and vehicle of the petitioner were seized on
07.02.2023 and the petitioner filed an application for release of the
vehicle, but the same was rejected on 04.01.2024 by the learned court.
However the said rejection was made on the ground that the insurance
policy and registration of the said vehicle have expired and further the
I.O. has stated that so far investigation is concerned, the said vehicle is
required. It was pointed out that after the seizure of the vehicle in
question, the said insurance policy and the registration of the vehicle
have been expired and for renewal of the same, the vehicle is required
to be produced before the competent authority.
6. The vehicle in question is commercial and it is of no use to
keep such vehicle at the police station for a long period. This aspect of
the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in
(2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs-5 and 17 of the said judgment are
quoted herein below:-
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court
to pass appropriate orders with regard to
such property, such as:
(1) for the proper custody pending
conclusion of
the inquiry or trial;
(2) to order it to be said or otherwise
disposed of, after recording such
(3) If the property is subject to speedy and
natural decay, the dispose of the same.
xxx xxx xxx
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation,
it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at
the police stations for a long period. It is for
the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and
guarantee as well as security for return of
the said vehicles, if required at any point of
time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles."
7. There is no bar in the Mines & Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004 for releasing the vehicles and the minerals in the Statute, however,
in the other Statute i.e. the Indian Forest Act, there is direct bar under
Section 52(c) of the said Act.
8. Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2004 is amended by Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
Amendment Rules, 2017, which reads as under:-
^^;fn fdlh okgu dk dksbZ pkyd y?kq [kfut dks
ifjogu djrs le; l{ke inkf/kdkjh vFkok funs'kd]
[kku vFkok vij funs'kd] [kku vFkok mi funs'kd] [kku
vFkok ftyk@lgk;d [kuu inkf/kdkjh vFkok lekgrkZ
vFkok lekgrkZ ;k jkT; ljdkj n~okjk izkf/kd`r fdlh
inkf/kdkjh dks izi= ^,e* vFkok >kj[k.M [kfut
leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds vUrxZr QkeZ Mh esa ifjogu
pkyku fn[kkus esa vlQy jgrk gS vFkok fujh{k.k ls
bUdkj djrk gS] rks mls vf/kdre 01 o'kZ dh dSn vFkok
[kfut ewY; dh nksxquh jkf'k ds cjkcj n.M vFkok nksuksa
,d lkFk n.M fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk nwljh ,oa rhljh
ckj oS/k ifjogu pkyku izLrqr ugha fd, tkus ij
mijksDr ds vfrfjDr n.M dh jkf'k Øe'k% 50]000-00
¼ipkl gtkj :i;s ,oa 1]00]000@ ¼,d yk[k½ :i;s
gksxhA tk¡p djus okys inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogu
djrs ik;s tkus ij okgu dks [kfut lfgr tIr fd;k
tk,xk rFkk ftls fdlh ljdkjh izfr"Bku esa vFkok
LFkkfu; Fkkuk izkax.k esa lqjf{kr j[kk tk,xkA l{ke
inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogudrkZ ds mijksDr n.M
'kqYd ,oa bl vk'k; dk ca/k i= ¼Bond Paper½ lefiZr
fd, tkus ij fd U;k;ky; n~okjk uksfVl fn, tkus ij
mifLFkr gksaxs] okgu dks [kfut lfgr NksM+k tk ldrk gS]
ijUrq voS/k ifjogudrkZ ij fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ gsrq
bldh lwpuk U;k;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh dks nh tk,xhA ca/k
i= dk izi= funs'kd] [kku n~okjk vyx ls ifjpkfyr
fd;k tk,xkA
9. On perusal of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, it transpires that the minerals can
be released on payment of double amount of the cost of the minerals, to
be deposited before the competent authority. However, in the case in
hand, the petitioner is not claiming the minerals.
10. So far as the release of the vehicle is concerned, the same
shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the
satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a
commercial vehicle of the District Sahibganj
(Jharkhand).
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or
transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire
purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner.
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification
of the vehicle in any manner.
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by
the Trial Court or before the confiscating authority.
11. The aforesaid conditions are the subject to the final result of
the criminal proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 04.01.2024, passed in M.C.A.
Case No. 1305 of 2023, whereby the release of the truck of the
petitioner bearing registration number JH-18-G-9141, has been rejected
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sahibganj, in connection
with Borio P.S. Case No. 32 of 2023, pending in the said court, is
hereby, set aside.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
