Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Bhaat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36620) on 14 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36620]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6574/2025
Mukesh Bhaat S/o Bhagirath, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village
Singhari Tehsil Rohat District Pali At Present Resident Of Kudi
Bhagtasni District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Mining Department District Jodhpur, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
14/08/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, challenge
has been made to the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offence),
Jodhpur Metropolitan, District Jodhpur pertaining to FIR No.
134/2025 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, District Jodhpur
whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the
vehicle in question (JCB) bearing registration No. RJ 22 EA 1880
has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the owner
of the vehicle in question which has been seized by the Police
Officers. He further submits that the petitioner being the owner of
the vehicle in question, is the person best entitled to get back the
possession of the seized property. There is no other person
claiming supurdagi of the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:36620] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6574/2025]
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
can be done in accordance with the procedure laid down therein.
As on date, the vehicle has not been confiscated, thus, a criminal
[2025:RJ-JD:36620] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6574/2025]
court is not supposed to keep a vehicle 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 vehicle 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 a vehicle 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 vehicle in
question in favour of the petitioner on interim custody till
conclusion of the trial provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of
Rs. 5,00,000/- and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court below.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
301-Hanuman/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
