JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 09.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021 as well as the order dated 20.02.2021 passed in Hiranpur P.S. Case No.53 of 2020, G.R. No. 511 of 2020, registered under Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and later on added Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, by which the petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for release of tractor and trailer having Registration No.JH-17N-7302 and JH-17P-4686 respectively of the petitioners was rejected. 3. A First Information Report being Hiranpur P.S. Case No.53 of 2020 was registered on 17.07.2020 against the said vehicles as well as the driver and owner of the said vehicles under Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and later on added Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code on a written report of the Officer-in-Charge of Hiranpur Police Station with the pretext that the informant, District Mining Officer, Pakur informed on 16.07.2020 that some vehicles being Registration No.JH-17N-7302 and JH-17P-4686 with sand were seized and kept at Hiranpur Police Station and on demand of transport challan, the drivers leaving behind their tractors fled away and thereafter the instant case has been lodged against the drivers and owners of the vehicles. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the commercial vehicles of the petitioner has been seized and F.I.R. has been lodged under Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and later on added Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that without giving any reason and only on the ground of Section and Rules, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the vehicles in question are not fit to be released. He also submits the revisional court has also rejected the revision petition only on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated. He also submits that in the instant case up till now, no confiscation proceeding is going on, rather the petitioners have valid documents relating to the said tractor and trailer. He also submits the revisional court has also rejected the revision petition only on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated. He also submits that in the instant case up till now, no confiscation proceeding is going on, rather the petitioners have valid documents relating to the said tractor and trailer. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled to get their vehicles released as they are the rightful owners of the same and the vehicles have been seized illegally. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the concerned courts have rightly passed the impugned orders. He further submits that the vehicles in question of the petitioners have been rightly seized. 6. On perusal of the revisional order dated 09.03.2021, it transpires that the vehicles in question were not released by considering the confiscation proceeding and as per Rule 9(i), 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017, the vehicles should be forfeited to the State Government. The trial court, vide order dated 20.02.2021 has also rejected the petition on the same ground. The confiscation proceeding is going on. For the end of justice, this criminal writ petition is maintainable in view of the fact that there is revisional order, which is also under challenge in this petition. 7. The vehicles in question are commercial and it is of no use to keep such vehicles at the police station for a long period. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraphs 5 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after recording such (3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the dispose of the same. xxx xxx xxx "17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. xxx xxx xxx "17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of 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." 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2021 as well as the order dated 20.02.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in Hiranpur P.S. Case No.53 of 2020, G.R. No. 511 of 2020 are quashed. The vehicles, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioners on their undertakings on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall furnish indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District Pakur (Jharkhand). (iii) That the petitioners shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicles on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (iv) They shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicles in any manner. (v) They shall produce the vehicles as and when directed by the Trial Court. 9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial Court deems fit and proper. 10. Accordingly, this criminal writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.