ISHWAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dtd. 21/12/2023 (Annexure P3), whereby application filed under Sec. 451 CrPC for release of his vehicle, moved by the petitioner, was rejected by the Id. Judicial Magistrate, Naraingarh, District Ambala, subject to payment of fine in case FIR No.431 dtd. 19/8/2023 under Ss. 21(1) and 21(4)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) 1957 [for short 'the Act'] and Sec. 379 of IPC, at Police Station Naraingarh, Ambala.

(2.) Ld. counsel contends that petitioner is owner of the tractor trolley No.HR-04J-2719, which has been impounded during investigation of FIR No.431 dtd. 19/8/2023 under Ss. 21(1) and 21(4)(A) of the Act and Sec. 379 of IPC, at Police Station Naraingarh, Ambala; that petitioner moved an application to release the vehicle on superdari, but the same was rejected by making it conditional to pay the fine as imposed under Sec. 21(4A) of the Act read with Rule 104 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 [for short 'the Rules'], Ld. counsel contends that because of the seizure of the vehicle, petitioner is suffering great financial loss, as the tractor trolley in question is his only source of income. It is further contended that no such condition can be imposed under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. which provides for passing appropriate orders for custody of the property pending conclusion of enquiry at trial. Learned counsel also refers to 'Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat " 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 380; 'Ikrarn v. The State of Rajasthan' S.L.R. (Criminal) 4797-4799/2023 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4/5/2023; and CRM-M-9846-2024 titled as 'Sukhchain v. State of Haryana' decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26/2/2024.

(3.) Ld. State counsel has opposed the bail petition by pointed out that by way of the impugned order dtd. 21/12/2023, the Court of Id. Magistrate not only rejected the application of the petitioner to release the tractor trolley in question of superdari, but at the same time allowed the application of the Mining department so as to confiscate the vehicle till recovery of the fine amount. Ld. State counsel also pointed out that though by way of the present petition, petitioner has challenged that part of the order, whereby his application for superdari has been rejected but has not challenged the order confiscating the vehicle. Still further, it is contended that vehicle of the petitioner was found to be involved in illegal mining for the third time and that as per the relevant Rules, the vehicle can be released only on payment of fine and in case of non-payment of the same, the same is liable to be confiscated. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Id. Magistrate, the application of the department for confiscation was allowed. Ld. State counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the Id. Magistrate and so, the petition deserves to be dismissed.