Allowed¶24

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025CRLR/4109/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Release of seized vehicle to registered owner; detention at police station; alleged illegal transportation of soil/mineral; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957; vehicle likely to become junk; furnishing adequate security; imposition of conditions; deposit of government dues; Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur; Misc. Application No. 863 of 2025; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC); CRLR No. 4109 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.07.2025 set aside; vehicle No. BR01 GN 2593 to be released to its registered owner on furnishing adequate security subject to conditions imposed by the concerned Court, and only after deposit of any pending government dues. ¶24

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. through District… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur was justified in rejecting the registered owner's application for release of vehicle No. BR01 GN 2593, detained in connection with alleged illegal transportation of soil under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶23

Court's answer

The concerned Court was not justified in rejecting the application for release of the vehicle in favour of its registered owner; by passage of time the vehicle is likely to become junk and its purpose would frustrate.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur is set aside; the concerned Court is directed to release the vehicle to its registered owner on furnishing adequate security, imposing conditions.

¶24

Key takeaways

Before releasing the vehicle, the concerned authority shall ensure that any government dues pending upon the vehicle are deposited; the vehicle is to be released only after such deposit.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.), Criminal Revision No. 4109 of 2025, decided September 24, 2025: Vehicle No. BR01 GN 2593, owned by revisionist Amit Kumar, was detained at the police station after allegedly being used in illegal transportation of soil under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (P.S. Chunar, District Mirzapur). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur rejected the registered owner's release application in Misc. Application No. 863 of 2025 on the ground that the vehicle was used in the commission of alleged crime. Holding the rejection unjustified since prolonged detention would render the vehicle junk, the High Court set aside the order dated 07.07.2025 and directed release of the vehicle to its registered owner on furnishing adequate security, subject to conditions, and only after deposit of any pending government dues. Counsel had placed reliance on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4109 of 2025

¶3

Amit Kumar

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Through District
Magistrate And 2 Others

¶7

.....Opposite
Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Revisionist(s):Krishna Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 86

¶10

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

¶12

2. The present revision has been preferred by the
revisionist against the order dated 07.07.2025
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mirzapur in Misc. Application No. 863 of 2025
(State Vs. Amit Kumar), under the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,
Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur whereby
the application for release of vehicle No. BR01 GN
2593 moved by the revisionist being registered
owner was rejected on the ground that the said
vehicle was used in the commission of alleged
crime.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted
that the revisionist is the registered owner of the
aforesaid vehicle and papers relating to the said
vehicle were update and valid but the Mining
Department has detained the said vehicle in the
police station. However, no case has been
registered in connection with the said vehicle of
the revisionist nor any complaint has been

¶14

CRLR No. 4109 of 2025

¶15

¶16

preferred before the Court. It is further submitted
that the said vehicle is not involved in any case
property and it has been alleged that the soil was
being illegally transported by the said vehicle
causing revenue loss to the Government. It is next
submitted that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mirzapur has called for a report
regarding confiscation proceeding but the report
sent at the end of District Magistrate no
confiscation proceeding is going on for the said
vehicle before the District Magistrate. Although it
is alleged that the said vehicle was involved in
illegal transportation of mineral (soil) but
however, since no challan of the said vehicle has
been made so far which is detained in police
station lying unnecessarily and long detention of
the said vehicle at the police station is likely to
diminish and ultimately the said vehicle may become
junk.

¶17

4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat, 2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC), it is submitted
that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "In our
view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations
for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass
appropriate orders immediately by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security
for return of the said vehicles, if required at any
point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles." It is
lastly submitted that revisionist is willing to
fulfill all conditions imposed upon him for release
of the vehicle in question.

¶18

5. On the other hand, leaned A.G.A. submitted that
since vehicle in question was involved in
transportation of soil, the Court concerned while

¶19

CRLR No. 4109 of 2025

¶20

¶21

rejecting the release application has not committed
any illegality. Impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity or illegality warranting interference
by this Court.

¶22

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the entire record carefully.

¶23

7. From a perusal of the record it reveals that the
revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle
in question. The concerned Court was not justified
in rejecting the application for release of the
vehicle in question in favour of its registered
owner. By passage of time, the vehicle is likely to
become junk and its purpose would frustrate. In
these circumstances, the criminal revision is
liable to be allowed and the impugned order is
liable to be set-aside.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed
and the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in
Misc. Application No. 863 of 2025 (State Vs. Amit
Kumar), under the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Chunar,
District Mirzapur is set-aside. The concerned Court
is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in
favour of its registered owner on furnishing
adequate security to his/her satisfaction by
imposing conditions upon the revisionist. It is
clarified that before releasing the said vehicle,
the concerned authority shall ensure that if any
government dues is pending upon the said vehicle,
the vehicle be released only after depositing the
same.

¶25

September 24, 2025
Rmk.

¶26

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases