- (1.) All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for release of Dumper/Truck/Trailer, which were seized, while doing illegal mining. The details of the concerned vehicle are being shown in the annexed Schedule-"A" to this order as per their respective petitions.
(2.) The release of vehicle has been examined at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Ors. Versus State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, which has been followed by this Court in Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2723/2019 along with connected cases decided on 3.2.2020 and Nathulal Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2755/2020 decided on 01.10.2020. In the case of Asharam (supra), the Court has held as under: "11. In the aforesaid background, this Court finds that while it is true that a vehicle should not be allowed to get rusted in Police Station and the same ought to be released for its better maintenance and proper use. Several suggestions were given out by the Officers of the Transport Department as well as by the Mining Department for laying down the conditions before release of the seized tractors, trolleys and vehicles being used for illegal mining activities. 12. In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 76/2014 decided on 23.7.2015 along with connected matters by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is found to be involved in committing violation of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and carrying forest produce, the same cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner of the vehicle, if proceedings of confiscation have already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shoukat Khan Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016, decided on 22.2.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given, if proceedings for confiscation have been initiated. In Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 60/2018 decided on 6.4.2018 along with connected matters by the Division Bench where a reference was made to the Division Bench on account of different opinion relating to the power of release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has held as under: "Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in Ramswaroop's case, which was later followed in Mala Ram's, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop's case on 28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan -S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the Court can refuse to release the seized vehicle even temporarily under Section 457 Cr.P.C, if such deposit is not made. In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee." In view thereof, the power is vested with the concerned Magistrate for release of seized vehicle. 13. Keeping in view the above, as this Court notices that in none of the cases, the Mining Department has not initiated the confiscation proceedings, it was submitted that compounding fee must be charged from the petitioners before release of the vehicle. However, this Court is of the view that the compounding fee can only be charged, if it is adjudicated that the concerned vehicle was involved in the illegal activities, which can only be when trial is completed. A presumption in this regard cannot be taken at the present stage. 14. In view thereof, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below dated 30.3.2019, 21.10.2019, 3.10.2019, 10.10.2019, 8.11.2019, 25.4.2019 and 8.4.2019 in each of the case shall stand set aside and this Court directs as under: a) The concerned Police Station shall release the tractor and trolley to the person, who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone. b) The release of the tractor and trolley shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get both the tractor and the trolley registered with the transport authorities and also obtain due permit within a period of one month from the date of release and deposit the copy with the concerned Police Station. c) A personal security of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle. d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. e) The petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle showing its number and colour etc. f) At the time of release, the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the concerned owner shall be personally liable."
(3.) In view of the above, all these petitions are allowed, however, taking into consideration that the vehicle is a dumper and not tractor as in Asharam (supra), the security amount is liable to be enhanced and following directions are passed: a) The concerned Police Station shall release the Dumper/Truck/Trailer to the person(s), who is the registered owner of the vehicle alone. b) The release of the Dumper/Truck/Trailer shall be subject to the condition that the concerned owner shall get Dumper/Truck/Trailer registered with the Transport Authorities and also obtain due permit within a period of one month from the date of release and deposit the copy with the concerned Police Station. c) A personal security of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle. d) The petitioners shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. The petitioners shall produce the vehicle as and when trial Court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. e) The petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle showing its number and colour etc. f) At the time of release, the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the concerned owner shall be personally liable.;