Seized vehicles may be released on installment payment with security, subject to repossession upon default.

The petitioner claimed ownership of two Tata Motors tip-trailer trucks bearing registration numbers JH-12M-0059 and JH-12S-6326, which were seized by the Mining Inspector, 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 assessed amounts of Rs. 9,00,035/- for vehicle JH-12M-0059 and Rs. 9,45,032/- for vehicle JH-12S-6326 as penalty/compounding amounts and the cost of the seized stone chips.

The petitioner initially sought release of the vehicles, a direction for registration of an FIR against certain mining and administrative officials, and restraint against confiscation proceedings.

During hearing, however, he did not press the other reliefs and expressed willingness to pay the assessed amounts in instalments, with release of the vehicles 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 vehicles upon default.

1. Whether the petitioner’s seized vehicles should be released upon payment of the assessed penalty amounts in instalments rather than in a single payment

2. Whether release of the vehicles should be subject to ownership documents, security/indemnity bonds, and an undertaking restricting alienation or transfer of the vehicles

3. Whether the respondents could repossess the vehicles upon default in payment and proceed in accordance with law

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 kept at police stations or in official custody for an unnecessarily long period and may be released expeditiously on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security, while ensuring their production when required.

The Court also applied the statutory provisions under Sections 305(e), 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under which the criminal case had been registered.

Exercising its writ jurisdiction, the Court fashioned conditional interim release of the vehicles against payment of the assessed penalty amounts, security equivalent to the vehicles’ current Insured Declared Value, and an undertaking against alienation or non-production of the vehicles.

Applying the principles governing release of seized vehicles, the Court considered it appropriate not to allow the vehicles to remain in official custody, particularly after the petitioner agreed to pay the amounts assessed by the Mines Department.

Balancing the petitioner’s request for instalments against the Department’s concern regarding recovery, the Court permitted payment in eleven monthly instalments.

Release was made conditional upon payment of the first instalment for each vehicle, production of ownership documents, and furnishing security/indemnity bonds equivalent to the current IDV of the respective vehicles.

The Court further protected the Department’s interests by requiring a written undertaking that the vehicles would not be alienated or transferred and would be produced whenever required.

It also accepted the Department’s request that default would permit repossession and further action in accordance with law.

For vehicle JH-12M-0059, the petitioner must pay Rs. 9,00,035/- in eleven instalments: a first instalment of Rs. 1,00,035/-, followed by ten monthly instalments of Rs. 80,000/- each.

For vehicle JH-12S-6326, the petitioner must pay Rs. 9,45,032/- in eleven instalments: a first instalment of Rs. 1,45,032/-, followed by ten monthly instalments of Rs. 80,000/- each.

The first instalments were to be paid on or before 18 September 2026, and the remaining instalments on or before the eighteenth day of each succeeding month.

The petitioner was required to furnish ownership documents and security/indemnity bonds, but not bank guarantees, equivalent to the current IDV of both vehicles.

He was also required to undertake that the vehicles would not be alienated, transferred, or sold during the pendency of the trial and would be produced whenever required.

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

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