Vehicles Seized for Illegal Mining Not Released on Mere Surety; Parity With Mining Department Terms: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioners' vehicles were seized in illegal-mining cases: by the police under Section 379 IPC and Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act, under the Motor Vehicles Act, or under Section 38 of the Police Act and the 2017 Rules; or by the Mining Department, under Rules 54 and 60 of those Rules (paras 2-3). Release applications under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, and some revisions, failed (para 4). The Mining Department released vehicles after compounding and collecting the compounding fee, cost of mineral and NGT fine, while police-seized vehicles were released on surety and bank guarantee without them (para 5). At the Court's request the Advocate General obtained the State's approval to treat both at par (paras 6, 12).

Under Section 457(2) CrPC the Magistrate can order delivery of property on such conditions as he thinks fit (para 16). Police-seizure cases recovered neither the NGT fine nor the cost of mineral (para 17). Drawing on Jayant, which stresses the State's duty to restore the ecological imbalance, the Court held that release on surety alone would encourage illegal mining (paras 14, 18). To curb rampant illegal mining and keep parity, it allowed first-category release on deposit of the compounding fee, NGT compensation and cost of mineral with the Mining Department, proof of deposit and an undertaking against future illegal mining (para 19). Petitioners ready to face trial could not have their vehicles on surety alone, as the Court must ensure parity (paras 9, 20); they deposit the NGT compensation and cost of mineral, pay no compounding fee, and the trial goes on (para 21). Referring to the Supreme Court's order in Jagdish Prasad, the Court left second-category cases to the Mining Department to compound (para 25). Though no petition sought quashing, it used its inherent powers for justice and deterrence (para 27).