Seized vehicle ordered released after first penalty installment against security bond equal to its IDV.

The petitioner’s truck bearing Registration No. BR-01GK-9892 was seized on 17 May 2023 in connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 296 of 2023, registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Department of Mines determined a penalty of ₹2,71,188 as compounding fees/cost of sand.

The petitioner sought release of the truck, protection from coercive action, stay of investigation and confiscation proceedings, and permission to pay the penalty in six instalments.

The petitioner offered to pay the first instalment immediately and the balance in five monthly instalments.

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

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

Whether the petitioner should be granted protection against further coercive or confiscatory action in the event of default or pending payment of the penalty.

Whether, upon full payment of the penalty, the authorities should move for compounding of the criminal case.

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 ordinarily be retained at police stations for prolonged periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security to ensure their production when required.

The Court also applied the conditions agreed or contemplated by the parties concerning payment of the mining penalty, furnishing ownership documents, and execution of a security/indemnity bond.

The criminal case arose under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, while the Department’s determination of ₹2,71,188 constituted the amount to be paid for compounding purposes.

Applying Sunderbhai, the Court considered prolonged retention of the truck unjustified where its release could be secured through payment conditions and an adequate bond.

Although the Department opposed instalments, the Court balanced the petitioner’s request with the Department’s concern by directing payment of the penalty in six equal monthly instalments.

Release was conditioned on payment of the first instalment, production of ownership documents, and furnishing a security/indemnity bond equivalent to the vehicle’s current Insured Declared Value, expressly excluding a bank guarantee.

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

The petitioner was required to furnish ownership papers and a security/indemnity bond equal to the vehicle’s IDV.

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

Upon payment of the entire penalty of ₹2,71,188, the respondent authorities were directed to move for compounding of the criminal case.