Mining-rule vehicle release requires a renewable bank guarantee equal to twice the vehicle’s value.

In brief

The question

1. Whether Rule 43(8) of the KMMCR Rules requires a renewable bank guarantee equal to twice the value of the vehicle as a condition for its release.

The court held

The petition was disposed of.

It also directed

The respondent was directed to furnish, within one month, a renewable bank guarantee equal to double the vehicle’s value before the competent court.

The other conditions imposed by the trial court remained unaltered.

01Facts

The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, allowed Lathesh’s application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of a lorry seized by the Department of Mines and Geology.

pp. 2–3

Release was ordered against a bond and two sureties for ₹6,02,050, subject to additional conditions.

pp. 2–3

The State challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC, contending that it did not comply with Rule 43(8) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (KMMCR Rules), which requires security by renewable bank guarantee.

pp. 4–5

The State informed the High Court that the vehicle had already been released under the trial court’s order.

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether Rule 43(8) of the KMMCR Rules requires a renewable bank guarantee equal to twice the value of the vehicle as a condition for its release.

pp. 4–6

ii.2. Whether the trial court’s release order should be modified because it required a bond and sureties rather than the security prescribed by Rule 43(8).

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

pp. 4–5

Rule 43(8) of the KMMCR Rules provides that a seized vehicle, excluding any seized minor mineral, shall not be released unless its owner executes security in the form of a renewable bank guarantee equal to double the vehicle’s value before the competent court; where a report has been made to that court under sub-rule (7), release is subject to that court’s orders.

pp. 4–5

The trial court’s reliance on Crl.P. No. 6776/2017—which observed that the MMDR Act contained no specific provision empowering a court to impose a bank guarantee—did not displace the express requirement in Rule 43(8).

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 451 Section 457

04Reasoning

The High Court held that the trial court had failed to apply Rule 43(8), which specifically prescribes a renewable bank guarantee for twice the vehicle’s value and therefore governs the security required for release.

pp. 5–6

Because the vehicle had already been released, the court modified the order by directing the respondent to furnish the prescribed guarantee, while leaving the trial court’s other release conditions intact.

p. 7