01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a JCB bearing registration No. GJ-04-CF-2020, seized by the Royalty Inspector in connection with alleged offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017
p. 1The prosecution alleged that the vehicle was carrying sand without a pass or permit when intercepted
p. 2The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release of the vehicle
p. 1The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of the seized JCB despite the confiscation provisions under the Mines and Minerals Act
pp. 1–2ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released subject to conditions securing its production and preservation pending trial
pp. 2–403Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers the Court may exercise to order release of seized property; Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also invoked by the petitioner
p. 1The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which observed that seized vehicles should not be left unattended to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with production secured if required by the Court
p. 3It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat and Jhala Ghanshyamsingh Mobatsingh v. State of Gujarat, which concerned release of vehicles under Articles 226 and 227
p. 2Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the vehicle was seized following an allegation that it was carrying sand without a permit, and noted the State’s reliance on confiscation provisions
pp. 1–2However, the State did not dispute the Court’s power to order release under Article 226, and the Court relied on the principle that retaining seized vehicles for long periods may cause them to deteriorate
pp. 2–3It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety and personal bond for 1.5 times the vehicle’s value, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed
p. 305Holding
The petition was allowed and the JCB was ordered to be released on the stated conditions; the order further provided for confiscation of the vehicle in the event of a subsequent offence
p. 3Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers
p. 4A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any order of the Trial Court permitting transfer
p. 4The Rule was made absolute
p. 4Original Court PDF
BIJALBHAI HARJIBHAI KHASIYAvsROYALTY INSPECTOR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
