[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Ram Saini vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 January, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 545/2026
Laxman Ram Saini S/o Sh. Jeevan Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Shri Dayalu Nagar, Bagoriya P.s Bagoria District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Vishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
23/01/2026
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.
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
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:35:44 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-545/2026]
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.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
12. A copy of this order be placed in each file."
In view of the submission aforesaid, this Court is inclined to
dispose of this criminal miscellaneous petition in terms of the
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:35:44 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-545/2026]
judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina
Ram (supra).
Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any,
stands disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
15-mayank/-
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:35:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
