Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sagar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35897) on 12 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:35897]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5971/2025
Sagar S/o Devaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jambheswar
Nagar, Kankani, Luni, Jodhpur City, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Premprakash S/o Madanlal, Presently R/o Khani
Karyadeshak 2 , Ratanada, Jodhpur City, District Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
by Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi.
Mr. SR Choudhary, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
12/08/2025
1. By way of the instant criminal misc. petition, challenge has
been made to the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, pertaining to
FIR No.131/2025 registered at Police Station Luni, District
Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner's prayer for release of the vehicles
i.e. Dumper bearing registration No.RJ 19 GG 1359 and JCB
bearing No.RJ 19 EA 7955 was allowed, subject to the pre-
condition of depositing the amount imposed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
impounding of the vehicle, it has remained parked in police
custody and with each passing day, its condition is deteriorating.
He submits that if it continues to remain in the present condition,
[2025:RJ-JD:35897] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5971/2025]
it will soon turn into complete junk, causing irreparable loss to the
petitioner.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the instant criminal misc.
Petition.
4. There is no complete bar under law giving interim custody to
the rightful owner of the property. A proceeding under mining laws
can be instituted only upon filing of a complaint at the instance of
the authorized officer and the cognizance of offence can be taken
based upon the averments made in the complaint. There is a non
obstante clause to the effect that no Court shall take cognizance
under the MMDA or Rules made thereunder except upon a
complaint moved on behalf of the authorized officer. If any
proceeding is undertaken by the Mining Department, the process
shall be followed in accordance with the provision and rules made
thereunder. A criminal court is not supposed to keep detained a
vehicle seized by the Police for an offence of theft of mineral. After
effecting seizure by the Police under the force of BNSS, the
provision under Section 503 of Cr.P.C. attracts automatically and
the law relating to disposal of the property would govern the field.
5. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is similar
circumstance in the case of Kishore Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan: (2021) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 139.
6. The Mining Department may initiate the proceeding
independently and it would be free and at liberty to take all legal
actions if fine penalty etc are ascertained and whereafter needful
[2025:RJ-JD:35897] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5971/2025]
can be done in accordance with the procedure laid down therein.
As on date, the vehicles have not been confiscated, thus, a
criminal court is not supposed to keep the vehicles detained until
the confiscation proceeding is commenced and concluded by the
Mining Department in the manner of an agent of the Department
of Mining. If any order is passed by the Mining Department or
even if confiscation order is made, the vehicles can be taken back
by the Department but not by the Police. As on date, there are no
reasonable grounds to keep detained the vehicle for an indefinite
period or for the purpose of completion of procedural formalities.
Keeping detained the vehicles for an indefinite period certainly put
decay and deterioration to the property which would be a loss to
the asset of the Nation.
7. In view of the above, the instant misc. Petition is allowed and
this Court deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicles in
question in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till
conclusion of the trial provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of
Rs. 24,00,000/- (as mentioned in the order of the learned trial
Court) and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
below.
8. Before releasing the vehicle, the trial court shall verify that
the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
68-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
