Seized vehicles may be released upon first penalty installment, subject to security and timely payment.

The petitioner claimed ownership of two Tata tipper trucks bearing registration numbers JH-12G-9543 and JH-12N-9643. The vehicles 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 penalties of ₹9,15,175 for the first vehicle and ₹9,17,181 for the second, described as compounding fees/cost of the stone chips.

The petitioner withdrew his other reliefs and sought permission to pay the 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.

Whether the seized vehicles should be released to the petitioner upon payment of the assessed penalty amounts through monthly instalments, subject to appropriate safeguards?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to have the matter compounded upon payment of the entire penalty amounts?

Whether the respondents should retain liberty to repossess the vehicles in the event of default in payment of the instalments?

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

It relied principally on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not ordinarily remain at police stations for long periods and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with photographs and a detailed panchnama being prepared before release.

Applying this principle, the Court directed release subject to payment of the initial instalments, production of ownership documents, and furnishing security/indemnity bonds equivalent to the vehicles’ current Insured Declared Value (IDV).

The Court treated prolonged retention of the seized trucks as unnecessary where their release could be secured through financial safeguards, consistent with Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

Balancing the petitioner’s willingness to satisfy the assessed penalties against the Mines Department’s concern regarding default, it permitted payment in eleven monthly instalments rather than requiring immediate payment in full.

Release was made conditional upon payment of the first instalment for each vehicle, submission of ownership papers, and execution of security/indemnity bonds equal to the respective vehicles’ IDV.

The petitioner was also required to undertake that the vehicles would not be alienated or transferred and would be produced whenever required during the proceedings.

To protect the Department, the Court expressly allowed repossession if any instalment was not paid within the prescribed time.

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

Release was further subject to ownership documents, security/indemnity bonds equal to the current IDV, and an undertaking against alienation or non-production of the vehicles.

In case of default, the respondents could repossess the trucks and proceed in accordance with law; upon full payment, the authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.