Seized vehicles may be released upon payment of mining penalties in court-approved installments.

The petitioner’s truck bearing registration no. BR-01GL-2802 was seized on 16 June 2024 in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 258 of 2024, registered under Sections 379, 411 and 34 of the IPC and Rules 56(i) and 56(ii) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019, as amended in 2021.

The Department of Mines determined Rs.3,14,538 as penalty/compounding fees and cost of sand. The petitioner sought release of the truck, protection from coercive action, stay of investigation and confiscation proceedings, and permission to pay the penalty in six instalments.

The Mines Department did not object to instalment payments but sought liberty to repossess the truck in case of default.

Whether the seized truck should be released to the petitioner upon payment of the determined penalty in instalments?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection against further coercive or confiscation proceedings in relation to the seized truck?

Whether payment of the entire penalty could lead to compounding of the case?

The Court applied 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 for prolonged periods and that courts may order their interim release upon appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, while preserving the vehicle’s availability when required.

The Court also proceeded on the basis of the penalty determined under Rules 56(i) and 56(ii) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019, as amended in 2021, and the Department’s authority to compound the matter upon payment of the prescribed amount.

The criminal allegations arose under Sections 379, 411 and 34 of the IPC.

Considering the petitioner’s willingness to pay the assessed penalty and the Mines Department’s consent to payment by instalments, the Court adopted a conditional-release approach consistent with Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

It balanced the petitioner’s interest in avoiding prolonged detention and deterioration of the truck against the Department’s interest in securing payment by requiring payment of the first instalment before release and reserving liberty to repossess the vehicle upon default.

The Court did not quash the FIR or stay the investigation; instead, it directed that, after payment of the entire penalty, the respondent authorities would move for compounding of the case.

The first instalment of Rs.52,423 was to be deposited on or before 3 September 2026, before the concerned authority, with the remaining five instalments payable on or before the 3rd day of each succeeding month.

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

Upon payment of the full penalty, the respondent authorities were directed to move for compounding of the case.