Ansar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5188/2015

¶3

Ansar Khan S/o Suleman Khan, R/o Bharja Gaddi, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines Geology Department, 1/17, Rajasthan Housing Board Kahn Bhankri Road, Dausa through P.P.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP
	Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP
	Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore,PP

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

18/03/2026

¶12

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sikaria, District Dausa by which the application submitted by the petitioner for release of the subject vehicle bearing No. RJ19-GC-5757 has been allowed and the subject vehicle has been ordered to be released subject to the petitioner furnishing a supurdginama of Rs.17,00,000/- along-with deposition of ten times of the royalty amount with the Mines Department and also depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compound fees before the Trial Court.

¶13

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

¶14

[CRLMP-5188/2015]

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

Perusal of the contents of the petition indicate that the subject vehicle was seized by the respondent-Authority on the ground of involvement in illegal excavation of mines & mineral, particularly, bajri. After seizure of the subject vehicle, an application was submitted by the petitioner for release of the said vehicle on supurdagi, however, the application submitted by the petitioner was allowed in terms of the conditions as stated above.

¶17

It is settled proposition of law that whenever any vehicle is seized for the charge of illegal excavation of mines and mineral, the same cannot be released simply by taking a supurdginama of the value of the vehicle and the same is required to be released by imposing certain terms and conditions. 5. Recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Girraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.419/2025 on 06.10.2025 has dealt with the identical issue and decide the issue with the following directions in Para No.12, which reads as under:-

¶18

“12. Thence, in light of the directions and guidelines spelled 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:

¶19

12.1 That in case the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, the vehicle shall then be released only on payment of penalty and

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMP-5188/2015]

¶22

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.

¶23

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 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.

¶24

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

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

[CRLMP-5188/2015]

¶27

shall also be imposed by the learned trial court, as per the aforementioned judgments.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.”

¶30

Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the vehicle can be released on furnishing a bond of an equal amount to the current value of the impounded vehicle. Current value shall be as per the satisfaction of the competent Court and upon furnishing of a bond of the aforesaid amount the said vehicle can be released on other terms and conditions as mentioned in the aforesaid para.

¶31

This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Court below and the same does not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant petition stands rejected. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

Aayush Sharma /34

Ansar Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Verma S/O Shri Ganesh Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pravin Kumar Varma S/O Shri Mahaveer Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Chusiram Meena S/O Mahadaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Puran Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ravi Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Nayan Singh by Caste Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan