[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1378/2025 on 9 February, 2026
2026:UHC:711
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528 No.1378 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Advocate for
the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
2. By means of the instant criminal
miscellaneous application, the applicants
seek quashing of the order dated
28.04.2025 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Misc.
Application No. 31 of 2025, as well as
the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in
Criminal Revision No. 05 of 2025. Further
relief is prayed for directing respondent
no.2 to release the vehicles in favour of
the respective applicants.
3. An F.I.R. bearing No. 11 of 2025
was registered on 17.03.2025 at Police
Station Kapkot, Bageshwar, against the
vehicles of the applicants under Sections
223(a), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS) and Section 4/21 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957. Following investigation, the
vehicles were seized by the police on
28.03.2025 and subsequent dates in
April, 2025. The applicants thereafter
filed applications for release of the
vehicles, which were dismissed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bageshwar vide order dated 28.04.2025.
Aggrieved thereby, the applicants
preferred Criminal Revision, which was
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge,
2026:UHC:711
Bageshwar vide order dated 25.07.2025,
affirming the Magistrate's order. Hence,
this criminal misc. application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that no complaint regarding
illegal transportation of minor minerals
was ever lodged against the applicants
by the concerned officer or District
Magistrate under the Uttarakhand Minor
Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2023 or the
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957. He contends that
the seizure of vehicles by police on
28.03.2025 and in April, 2025 was
effected without any such prior
complaint. It is an admitted position of
the respondents that no minor minerals
were confiscated from the vehicles at the
time of seizure, nor was any e-Ravanna
recovered. Furthermore, the mandatory
requirement under Section 106 BNSS to
produce the seized vehicles before the
jurisdictional Magistrate was not
complied with, resulting in violation of
Section 23 BNSS. The applicants are
solely dependent on these vehicles for
their livelihood, having availed bank
loans for their purchase. The vehicles
have been illegally detained for nearly
one year, lying in the open adjacent to
the police station, leading to rust and
dilapidation. Learned counsel for the
applicant has drawn attention of this
Court to Rule 70(8) of Uttarakhand Minor
Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2023, which
provides that any person found to have
contravened this Rule shall, on
conviction, be punishable with fine which
may extend to ₹2,00,000/-.
5. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
2026:UHC:711
Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283,
wherein it was held that prolonged
retention of seized vehicles at police
stations serves no fruitful purpose. The
Magistrate must pass immediate orders
for interim release upon appropriate
bond, guarantee, or security, to prevent
loss or depreciation.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel
submits that a Division Bench of this
Court in WPPIL No. 202 of 2024 (along
with WPPIL No. 174 of 2024) vide order
dated 06.01.2025 suspended all mining
operations in Bageshwar district with
immediate effect. Despite this, Ishtadev
Stone Crusher at Golna, Kapkot,
continued mining activities using forged
e-Ravannas for transporting minor
minerals. He submits that a complaint
was lodged on 17.03.2025 and, after
investigation, 48 vehicles were
confiscated, as they were found involved
in such illegal transportation of minor
minerals and they are parked at the
police station yard.
7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. It is an
admitted case of the respondents that no
separate F.I.R. specifically targeting the
seized vehicles was registered; and (ii)
no complaint was moved before the
Competent Authority/District Magistrate
under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
read with Uttarakhand Minor Mineral
(Concession) Rules, 2023. The seizure
thus lacks statutory backing under the
specialized mining laws, rendering it
prima facie irregular. Non-compliance
with Section 106 BNSS (production of
seized property before Magistrate) and
Section 23 BNSS (proper custody and
2026:UHC:711
disposal) further vitiates the process.
The principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai (supra) squarely apply,
emphasizing expeditious release to avert
hardship, especially where vehicles are
livelihood assets facing depreciation.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion,
the impugned orders dated 28.04.2025
and 25.07.2025 are liable to be set aside
and are hereby set aside. The criminal
misc. application stands allowed. The
Competent Authority is directed to
forthwith release the vehicles listed in
paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit to
their respective applicants/owners upon
furnishing undertakings that: (i) they
shall produce the vehicles as and when
required during investigation or trial; and
(ii) they shall cooperate fully with the
authorities. It is made clear that such
release shall not prejudice the trial
pursuant to F.I.R. No. 11 of 2025.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
09.02.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654
45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
JAISWAL
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C
5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66,
cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.02.09 17:55:17 +05'30'
