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

The petitioner, Luv Kush Traders, through its proprietor, claimed ownership of two Ashok Leyland trucks bearing registration numbers BR03-GC8970 and BR01-GQ0593.

The vehicles were seized by the Mining Inspector, Kaimur, in connection with Mohania P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026, registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019, concerning alleged illegal transportation of ballast/gitti.

The Mines Department determined penalties of ₹8,97,750 for the first vehicle and ₹9,02,000 for the second, described as compounding fees/cost of the mineral.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicles and stated that it was willing to pay the determined amounts in instalments, while the Department objected to instalment-based payment but accepted that repossession could be permitted in case of default.

Whether the petitioner’s seized vehicles should be released upon payment of the determined penalty amounts in instalments and furnishing appropriate security.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to retain the vehicles subject to conditions preventing their alienation and ensuring their production when required, with liberty to the authorities to repossess them upon default.

Whether, upon payment of the entire penalty amounts, the Mines Department should proceed to compound the case.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing the alleged offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019.

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, which holds that seized vehicles should not ordinarily be kept at police stations for prolonged periods and may be released promptly by the competent court upon appropriate bonds, guarantees, security, photographs and panchnama, while safeguarding their production when required.

The Court also applied the principle that release of seized property may be made subject to security and conditions against alienation, with repossession available upon breach of the imposed terms.

The Court noted that the Mines Department had already quantified the amounts payable for the two vehicles and that the petitioner expressed willingness to discharge the liability without pressing its other reliefs.

Applying the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court considered continued retention of the vehicles unnecessary, provided the petitioner furnished ownership documents, security bonds/indemnity bonds equivalent to the vehicles’ current Insured Declared Value, and undertook not to alienate or transfer the vehicles and to produce them whenever required.

Balancing the petitioner’s request for instalments with the Department’s concern regarding recovery, the Court permitted payment in eleven monthly instalments and protected the Department by authorising repossession in the event of default.

The remaining ₹8,00,000 payable for each vehicle was directed to be paid in ten equal monthly instalments by the 18th day of each succeeding month.

Release was subject to furnishing ownership documents, security/indemnity bonds equivalent to the current IDV, and a written undertaking against alienation or non-production of the vehicles.

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

Upon payment of the total penalty amounts, the respondent authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.