Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Dumper Seized Over Alleged Sand Transport Without Permit, Requiring Value-Matched Surety And No Transfer Until Trial Ends

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should direct interim release of the seized dumper while the proceedings remain pending

The court held

The petition was allowed and the competent authority was directed to release the dumper, subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value, undertaking not to transfer it until trial disposal, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers; the RTO was to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of a Tata Motors dumper seized after police allegedly found it carrying sand without a pass or permit.

p. 1

An FIR was registered under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

p. 1

The petitioner relied on the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate.

p. 1

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should direct interim release of the seized dumper while the proceedings remain pending

pp. 1–2

ii.2. If release is ordered, what safeguards should be imposed to preserve the vehicle and secure its production when required

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not remain unattended in police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their return if required.

pp. 2–3

It also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

04Reasoning

The Court considered the vehicle’s alleged use in unauthorised sand transportation and the State’s objection based on possible confiscation, but noted that the State did not dispute the Court’s power to order release.

pp. 2–4

Applying Sunderbhai and the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat, the Court concluded that continued retention was unwarranted, particularly given the finance company’s no-objection certificate.

pp. 2–4

It balanced release against the need to preserve the vehicle and secure its availability through surety, an undertaking, production requirements, and police documentation.

pp. 2–4