Seized vehicles must be released upon first installment and IDV-equivalent security, subject to repossession on default.

The petitioner claimed ownership of two trucks bearing registration Nos. BR21-GC0366 and BR21-GC2228, 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 penalties/compounding amounts of ₹9,37,323 for the first vehicle and ₹9,02,903 for the second vehicle.

Although the writ petition initially sought release of the vehicles, registration of an FIR against certain officials, and protection against confiscation, the petitioner abandoned the other reliefs and requested permission 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 authorised to repossess the vehicles upon default.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pay the assessed penalty amounts in instalments and obtain release of the seized vehicles upon payment of the first instalments.

Whether the release should be subject to ownership documents, security/indemnity bonds, non-alienation undertakings, and the condition that the vehicles may be repossessed in case of default.

Whether, upon payment of the entire penalty amounts, the respondents should proceed with compounding of the case.

The Court considered the seizure and continued retention of the vehicles in the context of the offences alleged under Sections 305(e), 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It relied upon 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 on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with photographs and a detailed panchnama being prepared before release.

Applying that principle, the Court treated conditional release against payment, security and an undertaking as an appropriate mechanism for safeguarding the interests of the authorities while preventing unnecessary continued detention of the vehicles.

The petitioner accepted the penalty determinations and expressed willingness to pay the amounts without prejudice to his rights, while the Mines Department’s principal objection concerned payment by instalments rather than the assessed amounts themselves.

In light of the principle against prolonged retention of seized vehicles stated in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court balanced the petitioner’s claim for release against the Department’s financial and procedural interests by permitting instalment payments and requiring substantial safeguards.

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

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

The Court further protected the Department by authorising repossession if any instalment was not paid within the prescribed time.

For vehicle No. BR21-GC0366, the petitioner was required to pay an initial instalment of ₹1,37,323, and for vehicle No. BR21-GC2228, an initial instalment of ₹1,02,903, on or before 18 September 2026.

After payment of the respective first instalments, the vehicles were to be released upon submission of the requisite ownership documents and security/indemnity bonds equivalent to their respective IDVs, along with a written non-alienation and production undertaking.

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

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

Upon full payment of ₹9,37,323 and ₹9,02,903, respectively, the authorities were directed to proceed with compounding of the case.