Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:4573)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1141 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1141 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:4573) on 24 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:4573]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 96/2026

Kuldeep Singh S/o Himmat Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Khachrol,bhilwara, District - Bhilwara
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


Petitioner-self              :     Mr. Kuldeep Singh, present in person
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

24/01/2026

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 Gadri (supra) and M/s Mahadev Construction (supra), this

(Uploaded on 24/01/2026 at 02:09:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4573] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-96/2026]

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.