Seized vehicle may be released on installment payment of penalty against security, subject to repossession upon default.

The petitioner claimed ownership of Tata Motors Tip Trailer Truck bearing Registration No. JH-12K-6676, which was seized by the Mining Inspector, Nawada, in connection with Rajauli P.S. Case No. 72 of 2026, registered under Sections 305(e), 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The Mines Department assessed a sum of ₹8,96,369 as penalty/compounding fees and cost of the stone chips.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, challenged the alleged misuse of official position by the mining authorities, and sought protection against confiscation.

During hearing, he abandoned the other reliefs and expressed willingness to pay the assessed amount in instalments, seeking release of the vehicle after payment of the first instalment.

The Mines Department opposed payment by instalments but accepted that, if instalments were permitted, it should be allowed to repossess the vehicle upon default.

Whether the petitioner’s seized vehicle should be released upon payment of the assessed penalty in instalments rather than in a lump sum.

Whether appropriate safeguards should be imposed to secure production and preservation of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings.

Whether the Mines Department should be permitted to repossess the vehicle in the event of default in payment of the instalments.

Whether payment of the entire assessed amount would entitle the petitioner to compounding of the case.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 305(e), 303(2) and 317(2) of the BNS.

It applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, that seized vehicles should not ordinarily remain at police stations or in official custody for prolonged periods and may be released upon appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their production when required.

The Court further relied on the principle that photographs and a detailed panchnama should be prepared before handing over possession of a seized vehicle.

In exercising its writ jurisdiction, the Court balanced release of the vehicle against payment security, an indemnity/security bond, and an undertaking against alienation or non-production of the vehicle.

The Court noted that the Mines Department had already quantified the petitioner’s financial liability at ₹8,96,369 and that the petitioner was willing to discharge that liability, although in instalments.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court found that continued retention of the vehicle was not necessary where adequate financial and documentary safeguards could secure the interests of the authorities.

It therefore permitted payment in instalments, while requiring the petitioner to furnish ownership documents and a security/indemnity bond equivalent to the vehicle’s current Insured Declared Value.

The undertaking that the vehicle would not be alienated and would be produced whenever required further addressed the evidentiary and procedural concerns arising from its release.

To protect the Department, the Court authorised repossession and further proceedings in accordance with law if any instalment was not paid within the prescribed time.

Release was subject to production of ownership documents, furnishing of a security/indemnity bond equal to the vehicle’s IDV, and a written undertaking not to alienate or transfer the vehicle and to produce it whenever required.

In case of default, the respondents were permitted to repossess the truck and proceed in accordance with law.

Upon payment of the entire amount of ₹8,96,369, the authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.