Sumitra Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3768)
2026 Latest Caselaw 933 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 933 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sumitra Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3768) on 21 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:3766]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10660/2025

Laxman Singh Alias Laxman Pal Singh S/o Arjun Singh, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o House No. 101, Rajputo Ka Vas, Balda
Village, Teh. And Dist. Sirohi, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent
             S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7961/2025

 Sumitra Vishnoi W/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
 In Front Of Mahadev Temple, Village Tilwasni, Block Bilara,
 District Jodhpur Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
 2.       S.h.o., Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
 3.       The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District
          Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents
             S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9574/2025

  Jagdish Chander Nayak S/o Ladulal Nayak, Aged About 22
  Years, R/o Sarthala, Tehsil Mandalgarh District Bhilwara.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
  State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent
             S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7579/2025

   Udai Lal S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years,
   R/o Trestha Gram Panchayat Soniyana, Tehsil Gangrar,
   District Chittorgarh
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
   1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor


                      (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 11:32:56 AM)
                     (Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:40:57 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:3766]                       (2 of 4)                      [CRLMP-10660/2025]



   2.        The Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Department Of Mines
             And Geology, Kachi Basti, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for Mr. Vinit
                                   Sanadhya,
                                   Mr. DS Gaur,
                                   Mr. RS Chouhan,
                                   Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
                                   Mr. Mohan Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Mahaveer Jain, Addl. Advocate
                                   General, assisted by Mr. Devendra
                                   Prajapat, AGC
                                   Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP &
                                   Mr. HS Jodha, PP



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

21/01/2026

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 these

matters 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 these criminal miscellaneous

petitions being squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said

judgment, the petitions 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 23/01/2026 at 11:32:56 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3766] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-10660/2025]

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.