Labbu Singadiya S/O Shri Annu Singadiya, Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 419/2025

Girraj Meena S/o Shri Nathu Meena, aged about 34 years, R/o House No.101, Shankar Nagar, Goner Road, Near Chetak Bhatta, Luniyawas, Police Station Khoh-Nagoriyan, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan - through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 1564/2017 2. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 1570/2017 3. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 3739/2023 4. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 242/2024 5. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 1684/2024 6. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 2761/2024 7. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 7570/2024 8. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 2375/2025 9. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 2775/2025 10. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 2831/2025 11. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 3389/2025 12. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 4107/2025 13. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 4882/2025

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Jitendra Singh Shekhawat Mr. Sandeep Pathak (Amicus Curiae) with Ms. Jaya Pathak Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma Mr. Nikhlesh Katara Mr. Bharat Raj Yogi Mr.Azad Ahmed Mr.Majhar Hussain Mr.Rahul Agrawal Mr.Khurshid Ahmed Khan Ms.Aaradhna Swami Mr.Jagdish Nagar Mr.Mohd.Rahil Kalam Mr.Mukesh Pal Jadon Mr.Anmol Dhakar Mr.Buddhi Prakash Sharma Mr.Anil Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG – for Transport Department Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC for Mining Department Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.GC for Forest Department

(2 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶16

Judgment

¶17

Reserved on :: 21/08/2025

¶18

Pronounced on :: 6/10 / 2025

¶19

In view of the intertwined nature of the controversy involved, coupled with the identical factual matrix emerging in the present matters, and as the instant batch of petitions have been filed claiming identical reliefs; with consent of the learned counsel representing various parties, the instant batch of petitions have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. It is made cautiously clear that the present judgment shall be applicable on mutatis mutandis basis on all the petitions connected herein, and for the sake of handiness with consent of learned counsel appearing for various parties SBCRLMP No. 419/2025 titled as Giriraj Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. is taken up as lead petition for factual references.

¶20

At the outset, this Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae . The Court acknowledges the painstaking efforts, research and submission made by the learned amicus curiae – Mr. Sandeep Pathak assisted by Ms. Jaya Pathak which have been of immense assistance in the just and proper adjudication of the present matter.

¶21

The primary issue assailing which the present petitions have been filed pertain to the seizure of vehicles on account of offences under various statues, inter alia , the Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

(3 of 14)

Migration or Exports) Act, 1995, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It has been noted that in the matters at hand, orders passed by various Revisional authorities are assailed for the reason that the said orders are passed sans taking note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment have jot down the guidelines qua release of seized vehicles as when such vehicles are kept in the backyards of the Police Stations, they bear no fruitful results to either of the parties and rather turn into scrap.

¶26

During the course of hearing learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that as in the nittygritty of the lead petition SBCRLMP No. 419/2025 titled as Giriraj Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. it can be noted that the said petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge. No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision No. 41/2024 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3 in case no. 340/2024 arising out of FIR No. 459/2024 dated 17.06.2024 registered at Police Station Kho-Nagoriyan, District Jaipur City (East) for offences under sections 379 of IPC, 54/60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and Sections 4/21 of the MMDR Act was confirmed. It was further contended that on the application moved by the petitioner, the learned Trial Court ordered that the applicant/petitioner deposits the total amount of Rs. 1,29,500/imposed as per the panchnama for the said vehicle tractor with

(4 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

trolley in the concerned department and after depositing the said amount, presents the receipt in the Court concerned. Consecutively, if the applicant presents a supurdaginama of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a bail bond of the same amount and gets it confirmed that he will keep the said vehicle safe, and present the same when summoned by the Court, then the seized vehicle tractor will be handed over to the petitioner on supurdagi after receiving the receipt as per the Rules.

¶31

It was unanimously averred that the continued seizure of the petitioners’ vehicle is serving no fruitful purpose for either of the parties, as the owner of the vehicle is deprived of its legitimate use, whereas the concerned police authorities are also not in a position to put the said vehicle to any effective utilization. In the meantime, the trial is likely to take considerable time before it attains finality and the vehicle turns into scrap. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, such vehicles ought to be released on supurdigi to the rightful owner, subject to appropriate conditions, so as to preserve their value and prevent wastage.

¶32

In support of the said contentions, reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein, it had been categorically held that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long durations and instead should be released to the owner on proper terms and conditions. Additionally, reliance can be placed upon the ratios and guidelines enunciated in General Insurance Council Vs. State of AP: (2010) 6 SCC 768,

(5 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

Basvva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore: (1977) 4 SCC 358.

¶37

On the other hand, learned AAG and amicus curiae have apprised the Court with provisions relating to release of vehicles under various Acts. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad : @SLP (Crl) Nos. 106-107/2021 passed an order dated 11.07.2023 stating that the vehicles involved in illegal mining, transportation and against these vehicles if FIR/Complaint has been lodged ought not to be released on regular basis; and in the case of Jitendra Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. Bearing no. SBCRLMP No. 1161/2020 wherein vide order dated 01.12.2021 it had been directed that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned authority of the mining department after depositing the compounding fee, cost of the mineral and fine imposed as per the directions of NGT.

¶38

Having heard the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the judicial precedents, this Court is of a view that a parity has to be maintained in the instant matters, therefore, the ratio encapsulated in Narayan Gadri vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6304/2021 dated 02.07.2024 is taken note of.

¶39

7. At the very outset, before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to refer to a judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in somewhat similar circumstances in case title Kishore Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2021) 0 Supreme (Raj.) 139

(6 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

speaking for this Court, my learned Brother Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. opined thus:-

¶44

"25. This Court, on a careful examination of the precedent laws in an intricate manner, finds that the precedent laws of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shall govern the field, and thus, the vehicles seized under the mining law and the forest law, shall be released, upon charging the compensation/compounding fee or without charging the compensation/compounding fee, only and only, if the confiscation proceedings in regard thereto have not been initiated by the State authorities. It is to be noted that both mining and the forest laws have the provisions for confiscation proceedings.

¶45

26. It is also observed that until the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the Magistrate concerned shall have the power to release the vehicle(s) with or without condition of deposition of compensation/compounding fee, but the Magistrate concerned shall be required to impose a condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee, so as to secure the compensation/compounding fee, if required to be levied in future, after completion of the proceedings.

¶46

27. It is made clear that once the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property cannot be made, in view of the law laid down in Adhikshak Rashtirya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam (Supra).

¶47

28. Thus, while parting with the present controversy, it is directed that all the police stations shall release the vehicles in question, may it be tractor, trolley, truck, dumper to the registered owners of the said vehicles, after confirming from the respective Department that there is no confiscation proceeding, under the mining or forest laws, going on in regard to the vehicles in question.

(7 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

29. To ensure that after undergoing the proceedings, the concerned parties i.e. registered owners of the vehicles in question shall be paying the requisite compensation/compounding fee, it is directed that the active bank guarantee, equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee, shall be deposited by the registered owners before the trial court before release of the vehicles in question.

¶52

30. It is also directed that after such bank guarantee equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee is deposited before the trial court concerned, to which the concerned police station is attached, the trial court concerned shall be required to keep such bank guarantees intact, until the final conclusion of the proceedings; and until the final conclusion of such proceedings is done by the competent courts, the bank guarantee shall remain subject to it and the orders passed at the end of the proceedings by the concerned trial court shall govern disposal of the bank guarantee.

¶53

31. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall be required to furnish photographs of their respective vehicles, showing their numbers, colours etc. Furthermore, at the time of release of the vehicles in question, the petitioners shall give an undertaking before the concerned learned trial court alongwith bank guarantee, as directed, that they shall not use such vehicles for any illegal and unlawful purpose, and in case any second offence, by means of the vehicles, is made out, then the same shall not be released, on any condition, until the confiscation proceedings come to an end."

¶54

(Emphasis supplied)

¶55

This Court is of a view that the vehicles lying at the Police Station since the date of of its seizure and its continuous detention has rendered it exposed to vagaries of

(8 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

weather and natural decay. It is noted that in majority of cases the petitioners are the registered owners of the said vehicles and are willing to furnish adequate security and abide by all conditions to ensure its production before the Court concerned, or the Investigating Officer as and when required. Moreso, the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) had categorically noted that the powers under Section 451 and 457 of CrPC ( pari materia to BNSS now) are to be exercised promptly to release such property on interim custody ( Supurdigi ), so as to preserve the value of the property and avoid unnecessary encumbrance of the State.

¶60

In Harun Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.76/2014 decided on 23.07.2015 along with connected matters by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that if a vehicle is found to be involved in committing violation of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and carrying forest produce, the same cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner of the vehicle, if proceedings of confiscation have already been initiated. Relying upon the law laid down in Harun (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shoukat Khan Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.6307/2016 , decided on 22.02.2017 has held that supurdginama can be given, if proceedings for confiscation have been initiated. In Laxman Versus State of Rajasthan: D.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.60/2018 decided on

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

(9 of 14)

06.04.2018 along with connected matters by the Division Bench where a reference was made to the Division Bench on account of different opinion relating to the power of release of vehicles wherein the Division Bench has held as under:

¶65

“Most of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing from the side of the petitioners have ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release the vehicles under the provisions of Section 451 and/or 457 of the Cr.P.C. A discordant note has however been sounded by Single Bench judgment in Ramswaroop’s case, which was later followed in Mala Ram’s, supra. These judgments, in view of the analysis of law which we have made herein-above, do not lay down correct law. In fact, the same Single Judge, who delivered the judgment in Ramswaroop’s case on28.08.2015, in his earlier judgment dated 26.10.2012 in Muknaram Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3285/2012, had held that in a case in which offence has already been compounded by the competent authority and an amount has been imposed as compounding fees and the same has not been paid or deposited by the person concerned, for the purpose of recovery or realization of the same, a condition can be imposed by the Court while ordering release of the vehicle to pay or deposit the same and the Court can refuse to release the seized vehicle even temporarily under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if such deposit is not made. In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee.”

(10 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

In view thereof, the power is vested with the concerned

¶70

Magistrate for release of seized vehicle.

¶71

Further, as per the provisions of Section 6A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animals (prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 as inserted by the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 2018 which empowers the District Collector (or any other designated Competent Authority) to confiscate the vehicles.

¶72

“ 6-A. Confiscation of the means of conveyance. - (1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act is committed, any means of conveyance used in the commission of such offence shall be liable to confiscation.

¶73

(2) Where any means of conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) is seized in connection with the commission of any offence punishable under this Act, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made by the person seizing it to the Competent Authority and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for commission of such offence, the Competent Authority, having jurisdiction over the area where the said means of conveyance was seized, may, if satisfied that the said means of conveyance was used for commission of offence under this Act, order confiscation of the said means of conveyance:

¶74

Provided that before ordering confiscation of the said means of conveyance a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the owner of the said means of conveyance and if such owner satisfies the Competent Authority that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence, the Competent Authority may not confiscate the said means of conveyance:

(11 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

Provided further that where such means of conveyance is owned by the Central Government or any State Government or any of their undertaking, no order of confiscation of such means of conveyance shall be passed by the Competent Authority and the matter shall be referred to the State Government by the Competent Authority for making such orders regarding means of conveyance as the State Government may deem fit: Provided also that before ordering confiscation under this subsection, the owner of the means of conveyance referred to in sub-section (1), may be given an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price of such means of conveyance:

¶79

Provided also that an owner of a means of conveyance shall not be given option under the preceding proviso, if he had been given option under that proviso at an earlier occasion.

¶80

(3) Whenever any means of conveyance as referred to in sub-section (1) is seized in connection with commission of an offence under this Act, the Competent Authority shall have, and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or release of such means of conveyance.

¶81

(4) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest or for the benefit of its owner that the means of conveyance, as referred to in sub-section (1), seized for commission of offence under this Act be sold by public auction, he may at any time direct it to be sold.

¶82

(5) Any order of confiscation made by the Competent Authority shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under this Act.”.

(12 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

Thence, in light of the directions and guidelines spelled

¶87

out in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), Basvva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (supra), General Insurance Council (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhukar Rao: (2008) 14 SCC 624 and Manjit Singh vs. State: 2013 (5) SCC 746 the present petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶88

12.1 That in case the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, the vehicle shall then be released only on payment of penalty and compounding fee. However, if it is found that no confiscation proceeding have yet been initiated, and it is merely an appeal pending, against the penalty/compounding order passed by the officer concerned, liberty in that case is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Court by filing a fresh application for release of vehicle on supurdigi.

¶89

12.2 To ensure that after undergoing the proceedings, the concerned parties i.e. registered owners of the vehicles in question shall be paying the requisite compensation/compounding fee, it is directed that the active bank guarantee, equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee, shall be deposited by the registered owners before the trial court before release of the vehicles in question. It is also directed that after such bank guarantee equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee is deposited before the trial court concerned, to which the concerned police station is

(13 of 14)

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

[CRLMP-419/2025]

attached, the trial court concerned shall be required to keep such bank guarantees intact/ongoing/renewed, until the final conclusion of the proceedings; and until the final conclusion of such proceedings is done by the competent courts, the bank guarantee shall remain subject to it and the orders passed at the end of the proceedings by the concerned trial court shall govern disposal of the bank guarantee.

¶94

12.3 Upon doing so, the same shall be released on furnishing a bond of an amount equivalent to the current value of impounded vehicle. Current value shall be as per the satisfaction of the learned competent Court dealing with the fresh application, if any when filed. Other conditions shall also be imposed by the learned trial court, as per the aforementioned judgments.

¶95

12.4 Further it is expected that the petitioner shall not sell, alienate or create any third-party interest in the vehicle during the pendency of the trial; submit photographs of their respective vehicles, showing their names, colours etc., and shall produce the vehicle before the Court or Investigating Officer as and when directed. It is also expected that the petitioner shall ensure that the vehicle is not used in commission of any offence in future.

¶96

12.5 In event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the interim release, in accordance with law.

¶97

(14 of 14) [CRLMP-419/2025]

¶98

[2025:RJ-JP:39268]

¶99

Accordingly, the present batch of petitions is disposed of with aforementioned directions being granted. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.

¶100

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶101

Preeti Asopa

Labbu Singadiya S/O Shri Annu Singadiya, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Labbu Singadiya S/O Shri Annu Singadiya, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Similar cases

Akash Meena S/O Chhotelal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Bintu Harwani Vs State of Raj and Ors.

K.K. Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal S/O Sh. Harinarayan Nayak Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gurupreet Singh S/O Shri Chand Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Girraj S/O Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan