Seized vehicle must be released after the first penalty instalment against security, subject to default consequences.

The petitioner claimed ownership of vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-27GA-5777, which had been seized by the Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, 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.

The Mines Department determined a penalty of ₹9,14,734 as compounding fees/cost in respect of the stone chips allegedly associated with the vehicle.

The petitioner abandoned his other reliefs, including the prayer for action against the departmental officials, and sought permission to pay the penalty in instalments, with release of the vehicle after payment of the first instalment.

The Mines Department opposed payment by instalments but accepted that, if such permission were granted, the vehicle could be repossessed upon default.

1. Whether the seized vehicle should be released to the petitioner upon payment of the determined penalty in instalments and furnishing appropriate ownership documents and security.

2. Whether the petitioner’s request for release of the vehicle could be considered in light of the principle that seized vehicles should not ordinarily remain in police or departmental custody for an extended period.

3. Whether the authorities could repossess the vehicle and proceed in accordance with law if the petitioner defaulted in payment of the instalments.

The Court relied on the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods and that the competent court or authority may release them upon appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, while ensuring their production when required; photographs and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared before release.

The Court also proceeded on the basis of the penalty of ₹9,14,734 determined by the Mines Department for compounding/cost of the stone chips and directed payment of that amount as a condition for release.

The underlying criminal case had been registered under Sections 305(e), 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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

Applying the approach in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court found it appropriate not to allow the vehicle to remain in custody indefinitely.

It therefore permitted payment in instalments rather than requiring immediate payment in full, but protected the Department by requiring an initial payment of ₹1,14,734, followed by ten equal monthly instalments totalling ₹8,00,000.

Release was made conditional upon production of ownership documents, furnishing a security/indemnity bond equal to the vehicle’s current Insured Declared Value, and a written undertaking that the vehicle would not be alienated or transferred and would be produced whenever required.

The Court further accepted the Department’s position that default would justify repossession.

The petitioner was required to furnish ownership documents and a security/indemnity bond equal to the vehicle’s IDV and undertake not to alienate the vehicle and to produce it when required.

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

Upon full payment of ₹9,14,734, the authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.