Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Shankar Lal on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26817]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2255/2019
State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through
The Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shankarla Patel S/o Man Ji Patel, Udaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1049/2019
State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through
The Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shankar Patel S/o Shri Rupa Ji Patel, Jagat, Tehsil Girwa, District
Udaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1050/2019
State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through
The Secretary, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1 Santosh Choudhary S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Choudhary,
. Kurabad, Tehsil And District Udaipur Through Her Power Of
Attorney Holder Shri Keshu Lal Meena S/o Shri Unjha Ji
Meena, R/o Aanjani, Mandore, Tehsil Lasadiya, District
Udaipur.
2. Shanta Devi Jat W/o Lal Chand, Through Her Power Of
Attorney Holder Shri Sukh Lal Dangi S/o Bhera Jidangi, R/o
Dholi Magri, Mawli, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1523/2019
State, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through The
Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26817] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2255/2019]
Udaylal S/o Kalu Ji Meena, R/o Aggad, Dist Udaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1525/2019
State, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through The
Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Keshulal Meena S/o Devi Ji Meena, R/o Aggad, Dist Udaipur.
2. Rajmal S/o Uda Ji Meena, R/o Aggad, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1527/2019
State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through
The Secretary , Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Nath S/o Ganesh Nath, R/o Uday Sagar Circle Through
His Power Of Attorney Holder Mohan Lal S/o Hamera , Sakroda
Tehsil Girwa Distt. Udaipur
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1531/2019
State, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through The
Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Chunnilal S/o Nathulal Ji Meena, R/o Choti Bambori, Dist.
Rajsamand.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2197/2019
State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through
The Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shankar Lal S/o Khem Ji Patel, R/o Gingla
2. Dalichand Patel S/o Rod Ji Patel, R/o Gingla
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26817] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2255/2019]
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2199/2019
State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Mines And Minerals Through
The Secretary, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Chokha S/o Geba Meena, R/o Ratanpura, Indana.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2204/2019
State, Department Of Mines And Mineral Through The Secretary,
Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kesar Singh, S/o Gautam Singh, R/o Loda
2. Nathu Singh S/o Kesar Singh, R/o Loda, Salumber , District
Udaipur
3. Vagat Singh S/o Kuber Singh, R/o Loda, Salumber , District
Udaipur
4. Uma Sankar S/o Jetram, R/o Loda, Salumber , District
Udaipur
5. Bhanwarlal S/o Nathiya, R/o Kharka, Salumber , District
Udaipur
6. Arvind Singh S/o Gowardhan Singh, R/o Dhul Ji Ka Guda,
Salumber , District Udaipur
7. Vagat Singh S/o Kuber Singh, R/o Loda, Salumber , District
Udaipur
8. Gowardhan Singh S/o Gulab Singh, Dhul Ji Ka Guda Through
Its Powe Of Attorney Holder Arvind Singh R/o Dhul Ji Ka
Guda . Salumber , District Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Khandelwal AAG
Mr. S.D. Chawariya
Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, AAG assisted by
Mr. Harshvardhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Pareek
Mr. Mahaveer Pareek
Mr. Devendra Prajapat
Mr Gaurav Bishnoi
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26817] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2255/2019]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 28/03/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. These batch of miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the
State of Rajasthan, challenging the orders passed by the
respective courts below whereby directions were issued for the
release of vehicles seized by the police in connection with alleged
contravention of mining laws. The petitions also assail the
rejection of the State’s prayer for imposing a monetary condition
as a prerequisite for release of the said vehicles.
2. The learned Magistrate, while dealing with the release
applications, has prudently considered the facts and legal position
applicable in such cases. Upon a reappraisal of the records and the
impugned orders, this Court finds no patent illegality, perversity,
or jurisdictional error warranting interference under its supervisory
or revisional jurisdiction.
3. It is a settled legal proposition that the power to pass interim
orders regarding the custody and release of property, including
vehicles, during the pendency of investigation or trial, lies within
the domain and discretion of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such
discretion, when exercised judicially and within the framework of
law, ought not to be interfered with lightly.
4. Furthermore, the release of vehicles in the present matters
has been directed only upon furnishing of adequate security and
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26817] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2255/2019]
custody bonds, and is expressly made subject to the outcome of
the inquiry, investigation, or trial. Thus, no prejudice is caused to
the prosecution or the State authorities.
5. This Court has had occasion to consider identical issues in a
batch of similar petitions being SBCRLMP No.2130/2021 (State of
Raj. Through PP Vs. Kesar Singh) alongwith nine petitions decided
by this Court on 17.06.2025 wherein the following order has been
passed:
1. These batch of Misc. Petitions have been filed by
the State of Rajasthan challenging the orders dated
15.07.2020, 04.09.2020, 29.07.2020, 14.08.2020,
05.09.2020 & 09.09.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal/
Criminal Revision Nos. 22/2020, 27/2020, 41/2020,
28/2020, 36/2020, 37/2020, 42/2020, 39/2020,
26/2020 & 41/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nathdwara/Sessions Judge Rajsamand, whereby
he allowed the revision petitions moved on behalf of the
vehicle owners, directing release of the seized vehicles
in their favour.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have carefully perused the impugned orders as well as
the material on record. The matter, though limited in
scope, involves certain legal niceties.
2.1. The vehicles belonging to the respondents-
accused were seized by the concerned police station on
allegations of violating penal provisions under the
Mining Laws. It is well settled that an application
seeking release of a seized vehicle may be filed either
by the registered owner or by a person best entitled to
possess the vehicle. The legal position in this regard is
no longer res integra, in view of the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26817] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2255/2019]
Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat
reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.
2.1. It is pertinent to note that such property, though
movable in nature, is still a national asset, and cannot
be left to deteriorate in the open parking areas of police
stations for an indefinite period. Proceedings under the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
can be duly undertaken in accordance with the
procedure established by law and rules framed
thereunder.
2.2. The grant of interim custody of a vehicle to its
registered owner is a discretionary power vested in the
criminal Courts under Sections 451 to 457 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. If any dues or penalties are
leviable against the respondents, the State authorities
are not precluded from initiating appropriate steps for
their recovery. Merely because proceedings are pending
does not necessitate continued detention of the vehicle
in every case.
3. Upon careful consideration of the impugned orders
of the learned Magistrate, who had earlier dismissed the
applications for release, it is evident that several
procedural and substantive deficiencies in the
prosecution case were rightly noted done by it. These
findings, supported by cogent reasons, cannot be
overlooked.
3.1. The orders passed by the Court of Revision
granting release of vehicles does not disclose any
perversity or manifest abuse of the process of law that
would warrant interference of this Court in the exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
3.2. Thus, I am, therefore, of the considered view that
the Misc. Petitions lack merit and deserve outright
dismissal.
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26817] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2255/2019]
4. Accordingly, the instant Misc. petitions are
dismissed. The stay petitions, and all pending
applications if any also stand disposed of.
5. Let a copy of this order be placed in each
connected file.
Keeping in view the proposition of law deliberated and
guidance taken from the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court,
this Court holds that unless the order of release is found to be
manifestly illegal or unsustainable in law, the interference would
be unwarranted hence, the instant Misc. Petitions deserves to be
dismissed.
6. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no force or
merit in these Misc. Petitions. The orders passed by the Courts
below are found to be legally sound and do not suffer from any
infirmity justifying interference. Accordingly, all the miscellaneous
petitions stand dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
7. Let a copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(FARJAND ALI),J
1-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:23:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)