01Facts
Police intercepted an Eicher 333 tractor carrying ordinary sand and found that its driver had no pass or permit.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2A criminal case was registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla, under the Mines and Minerals Act.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The petitioner sought release of the tractor under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, but did not dispute the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release.
¶ 5 · p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court should order interim release of the seized tractor while proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act were pending.
¶ 1–5 · pp. 1–2ii.2. If release were ordered, what safeguards and conditions should govern it.
¶ 7–11 · pp. 3–403Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate.
In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left unused to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their production when required.
¶ 7 · p. 3The Court 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.
¶ 6 · p. 3Section 497 of the BNSS was invoked in the petition, but the judgment did not separately analyse its application.
¶ 1 · p. 1Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
04Reasoning
The tractor was liable to remain in custody during the proceedings, but prolonged retention risked deterioration and was not necessary if adequate safeguards were imposed.
¶ 6–9 · pp. 3–4Applying Sunderbhai and the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat, the Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to permit release, subject to security equivalent to the penalty, an undertaking against transfer until trial disposal, and production of the vehicle when directed.
¶ 6–9 · pp. 3–4Photographs and a panchnama were also required to preserve evidence, with the records included in the charge-sheet papers.
¶ 10 · p. 405Holding
The petition was allowed and the tractor was ordered to be released subject to the specified conditions: a solvent surety equivalent to the penalty; an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle until final disposal of the trial; production of the vehicle when directed; and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
¶ 8–9 · p. 3The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, and the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer.
¶ 10–12 · pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
GAMARA GOVINDBHAI ARJANBHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
