Patna High Court
Gautam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the vehicle must be released upon payment of the fine and the petitioner’s undertaking, as pendency of the criminal case is not a valid ground to continue the seizure.
Summary
Gautam Kumar petitioned the Patna High Court for the release of his tractor (Reg. No. BR-02-W-6863) that had been seized in connection with a police case (Barachatti PS Case No. 950/2022) registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 21/56 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act. The petitioner argued that the continued seizure was causing severe economic hardship and offered to pay the prescribed fine and give an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and the Mines Department, accepted the petitioner's willingness to pay the fine but sought to retain the vehicle pending the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the mere pendency of the criminal case could not justify retaining the vehicle, especially as it would deteriorate and become worthless. Accordingly, the Court ordered the release of the tractor upon payment of the fine and the execution of the petitioner’s undertaking. The writ petition was disposed with these observations.
Issues considered
- Whether a vehicle seized under Sections 379, 411 IPC and Rule 21/56 MMDR Act can be retained pending the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.
- Whether the petitioner’s willingness to pay the fine and give an undertaking suffices for the release of the seized vehicle.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 411
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act — s. Rule 21/56
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- IPC 379
- IPC 411
- MMDR Act
- fine payment
- undertaking
- economic hardship
- writ petition
- release of seized property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.84 of 2025
======================================================
Gautam Kumar Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village Sobh, P.O.
Bhadeya (Beri) District Gaya (Bihar) Pin-824201.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additinoal Chief Secretary, Mines and Deology
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Mining Corporation Ltd (Bihar Govt.)
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Mineral Development Officer, Gaya.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Barachatti, Sub Div. Sherghari,
District.
6. Prakhar Pragya D/o Bhupendra Prasad Singh Khaan Nirakshak, Khanan
Karyalaya District Gaya, Bihar Mob.-8982065356 Resident of Village Patel
Nagar, P.S. Sultanganj District Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnish Ranjan, Adv.
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl P.P.
Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv.
For the BSMC. Ltd. : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 30-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rajnish Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Shruti Singh, learned counsel for the Mines
Department beside the learned counsel for the State, Mr.
Anirban Kundu.
2. The present petition has been preferred:
for a direction to the respondents
authorities to release the vehicle i.e. tractor Reg.
Patna High Court CWJC No.84 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
no. BR02W-6863 with trolley (Chasis No.
WxTF24405034852) in favour of the petitioner
which has been seized by the respondent in
connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 950/2022
Registered u/s 379, 411 of the I.P.C and Rule 21/56
MMDR Act.
3. The petitioner’s vehicle having Registration no.
BR-02-W-6863 stands seized in connection with Barachatti P.S.
Case No. 950 of 2022 registered on 21.10.2022. Learned
counsel for the petitioner at the outset, submits that he is ready
to participate in the proceeding so that it is taken to its logical
conclusion but the seizure of the vehicle has led to economic
crisis in the family. The submission is that he is ready to pay the
fine amount under protest so that the vehicle which is kept
under the sky for years is released and he can use it for business
purposes. The undertaking that is being given that;
(i) he shall not alienate the vehicle;
(ii) shall be produced as and when required;
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner is ready to pay the fine amount, after the undertaking
the vehicle can be released.
4. Taking into account the submission of the parties
Patna High Court CWJC No.84 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
and the limited prayer that the petitioner has put forward,
certainly, pendency of the proceeding cannot be a reason to keep
the vehicle under seized condition as everyday it will get
deteriorated making it worthless. In that background, if the
petitioner is ready to pay the fine amount, along with the
undertaking that he will not alienate and/or shall be producing it
at the time of as and when required, the respondent authorities
shall release the vehicle.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Abhishek/-
U
Checking your session…