Seized vehicles may be released against installment payment of penalties and furnishing security bonds.

The petitioner claimed ownership of two tipper trucks bearing registration Nos. BR-27-GA-5619 and BR-27G-1007, which were 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 Mines Department determined penalty amounts of ₹8,98,106 for the first vehicle and ₹8,94,297 for the second vehicle as compounding fees/cost of the stone chips.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicles and stated that he was willing to pay the penalty in instalments.

He did not press his other reliefs, including the request for registration of an FIR against departmental officials and the challenge to possible confiscation proceedings.

The Mines Department opposed payment by instalments but accepted that, if instalments were permitted, it should have liberty to repossess the vehicles upon default.

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

2. Whether the respondents should be permitted to repossess the vehicles if the petitioner defaulted in payment of the prescribed instalments.

3. Whether, upon payment of the entire penalty amounts, the authorities should proceed to compound the 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 remain at police stations or in official custody for prolonged periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their production when required.

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

Applying these principles, the Court directed conditional release against payment of the determined penalty, ownership documents, security/indemnity bonds equal to the vehicles’ current Insured Declared Value, and an undertaking against alienation or non-production of the vehicles.

The Court balanced the petitioner’s ownership claim and willingness to satisfy the departmental penalty against the Mines Department’s concern regarding recovery of the dues.

Guided by Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, it found that continued retention of the trucks was unnecessary if adequate safeguards were imposed.

Accordingly, it permitted payment in eleven monthly instalments: an initial instalment of ₹98,106 for vehicle BR-27-GA-5619 and ₹94,297 for vehicle BR-27G-1007, followed by ten equal monthly instalments of the remaining ₹8,00,000 for each vehicle.

Release was made conditional upon production of ownership documents, security and indemnity bonds equal to the vehicles’ IDV, and a written undertaking that the vehicles would not be transferred or alienated and would be produced whenever required.

To protect the Department, the Court authorised repossession in the event of default.

The balance penalty for each vehicle was 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 vehicles and proceed in accordance with law.

Upon full payment of ₹8,98,106 and ₹8,94,297 respectively, the authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.