Seized vehicle may be released upon instalment payment of penalty, subject to security and repossession upon default.

The petitioner, owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-27GA-8161, approached the Patna High Court seeking release of the vehicle seized by the Mining Inspector 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.

The Department of Mines had determined Rs. 9,27,819/- as the compounding fee/penalty relating to the seized stone chips.

The petitioner did not press his other reliefs and expressed willingness to pay the penalty in instalments, seeking release of the vehicle upon 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 seized vehicle should be released to the petitioner upon payment of the determined penalty by instalments, rather than in a single payment.

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

Whether the respondents could be authorised to repossess the vehicle in the event of default in payment of the instalments.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 305(e), 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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 an unduly long period and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their production when required.

The Court also relied on the procedural principle that release of seized property may be conditioned upon adequate security, an undertaking against alienation or transfer, and an obligation to produce the property during the proceedings.

The Court balanced the petitioner’s claim for release of the vehicle against the Department’s interest in securing payment of the determined penalty and ensuring availability of the vehicle.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court found it appropriate not to retain the vehicle indefinitely when its release could be secured through payment, ownership documents, and a security or indemnity bond.

It therefore permitted payment of the total penalty of Rs. 9,27,819/- in eleven instalments: an initial payment of Rs. 1,27,819/-, followed by ten equal monthly instalments totalling Rs. 8,00,000/-.

Release was made conditional upon furnishing ownership documents and a security/indemnity bond equivalent to the vehicle’s current Insured Declared Value, together with a written undertaking not to alienate or transfer the vehicle and to produce it whenever required.

To protect the Department’s interests, the Court authorised repossession upon default.

The remaining Rs. 8,00,000/- was directed to be paid in ten equal monthly instalments by the 18th day of each succeeding month.

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

Upon payment of the entire penalty, the authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.