Kailash Chandra Hazuri vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15802)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5259 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5259 Raj
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kailash Chandra Hazuri vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15802) on 7 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:15802]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2749/2026

Kailash Chandra Hazuri S/o Phoolchand Hazuri, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Bara Khera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2.       Director, Mines And Geology Directorate, Udaipur.
3.       Mining Engineer, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Suresh Kumar Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Anurag Jyani for
                                  Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

07/04/2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mining

Department jointly submit that the controversy involved in this

matter is no more res integra in view of judgment passed by Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina Ram Vs. State of

Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.597/2024, decided on

19.05.2025), and the issue raised in this criminal misc. petition

being squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said

judgment, the petition can be be disposed of in terms of the

judgment aforesaid. The relevant para of the judgment reads as

follows :-

"6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 06:23:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15802] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2749/2026]

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 until the confiscation proceedings are commenced and concluded by the mining department.

9. It is however, made clear that in the cases where criminal Court had handed over interim custody of the vehicles to its true owners on supurdaginama, the mining department shall be free to pass confiscation orders and take back the vehicles in accordance with law.

10. The present batch of criminal misc. petitions is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Court for filing fresh applications for release of their vehicle. The competent Court shall decided the fresh applications, if filed, in accordance with the observations made by this Court in para 8 of the judgment.