IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.18404 of 2011
Rajesh Raman
Versus
The State Of Bihar
-----------
02/ 09-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Petitioner, Rajesh Raman has filed the instant
petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for release of
dumper bearing registration no.BR-O8G-1127.
Raj Kishore Singh, Mining Inspector along with
police personnel conducted a raid at Shankarpur Pahar where
illegal mining was going on by one Haldhar Yadav who at an
earlier occasion was a lessee and truck, dumper, tractor,
drilling machine and other items were seized from there
engaged in the aforesaid illegal mining and its transportation.
Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the
aforesaid seizure happens to be illegal in the background that
petitioner’s dumper was hired by aforesaid Haldhar Yadav
and on account thereof petitioner had no knowledge regarding
illegal mining being carried out by the aforesaid Haldhar
Yadav. Further submitted that on account of seizure of the
dumper he is sustaining recurring loss. Also submitted that no
confiscation proceeding has been initiated by the concerned
2
department as is evident from Annexure-2, the letter sent by
the Mining Department to the CJM as requisitioned. Also
submitted that in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s direction
as reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, petitioner’s prayer is fit to
be allowed.
On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer
and submitted that though Annexure-2 is there but it did not
disclose whether any confiscation has been launched or not.
From perusal of relevant Annexures it is evident
that petitioner failed to get his grievance redressed from the
court of learned CJM as well as from the court of learned
Sessions Judge where apart from petitioner others have also
filed Cr.Revision and a consolidated order was passed vide
order dated 24.03.2011 in connection with Cr.Revision Nos.
42/11, 46/11 and 47/11.
So far as averments of Annexure-2 is concerned,
from perusal of the same it is evident that Mining Officer had
requested the court concerned to take proper steps in
accordance with law instead of disclosing whether any
confiscation proceeding has been launched or not.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC 638 at paragraph-17 has held as follows:-
” ” In our view, whatever be the situation, it is
3of 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”
Therefore the prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
Learned court below is directed to release the dumper
bearing registration no. BR-08G-1127 in favour of the
petitioner after verifying the original owner book, tax token,
insurance, road permit etc on a bank guarantee of Rs.5 Lacs
with two sureties in connection with Munger Mufassil P.S.
Case No. 01 of 2011, G.R. No.40 of 2011 registered under
Section 379, 504, 420 of the IPC and Section 4 M.M.R.D
Act as well as, 4/40 BMMC Rule, 1972.
Petitioner will furnish an undertaking that he will
not change the owner-ship till continuance of the proceeding
as well as will produce the vehicle whenever and wherever is
required by the court.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)
perwez
4