Seized vehicles may be released upon installment payment of assessed penalties, subject to security and non-alienation conditions.

The petitioners claimed ownership of trucks bearing registration numbers BR-27-GA4658 and BR-27-GA6729, which had been 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 assessed a penalty/compounding amount of ₹9,12,883 for the first truck and ₹9,37,323 for the second truck, described as the cost/compounding fee relating to the seized stone chips.

During the hearing, the petitioners did not press their other reliefs and sought permission to pay the assessed amounts in instalments, with release of the vehicles after payment of the first instalment.

The Mines Department opposed payment by instalments but agreed that, if instalments were permitted, it should be allowed to repossess the vehicles in case of default.

1. Whether the seized trucks could be released in favour of the petitioners upon payment of the assessed penalty amounts through instalments and furnishing appropriate ownership documents and security bonds?

2. Whether the respondents could be permitted to repossess the vehicles and proceed in accordance with law if the petitioners defaulted in payment of the instalments?

3. Whether payment of the entire assessed penalty would require the Mines Department to proceed with compounding of the case?

The Court considered the seizure and release of vehicles in the context of Rajauli P.S. Case No. 72 of 2026 registered 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 be kept at police stations for long periods and that the competent court may order their release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, while ensuring their production when required; photographs and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared before release.

The Court noted that the petitioners accepted the assessed penalty amounts and expressed their willingness to pay them, while the Mines Department’s principal objection concerned only payment by instalments.

Balancing the petitioners’ interest in avoiding prolonged detention of the vehicles with the Department’s entitlement to secure recovery of the assessed amounts, the Court permitted payment in eleven instalments.

Release was made conditional upon payment of the respective first instalments, submission of ownership documents, and furnishing security/indemnity bonds equivalent to the current Insured Declared Value of each vehicle.

The Court further protected the Department’s interest by prohibiting alienation or transfer of the vehicles and by authorising repossession upon default.

Consistent with the petitioners’ concession, the Court directed that compounding could be undertaken after complete payment of the respective penalty amounts.

The balance of ₹8,00,000 for each vehicle was to be paid in ten equal monthly instalments on or before the 18th day of each succeeding month.

The petitioners were required to furnish ownership documents and security/indemnity bonds—not bank guarantees—equivalent to the vehicles’ current IDVs, and to undertake that the vehicles would not be alienated or transferred and would be produced whenever required.

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

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