HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2712/2024 Ranjeet Kathat S/o Shokeen Kathat, R/o Amarpura (Peepla), Tehsil Masooda, District Beawar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public Prosecutor 2. Shri Lokesh Suman, Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Beawar (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3443/2024 Dharmichand S/o Shrawan, R/o Jaswantpura Nandwada, Tehsil Masooda, District Beawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Shri Deshraj Meena S/o Jeet Ram Meena, Mining Engineer, Office of Mines And Geology Department, Beawar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6968/2025 Pappu Jat Son of Shri Rameshwar Lal Jat, Resident Of Jaton Ka Mohalla, Phooliyakala, Tehsil Phooliyakala, District Bhilwara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Department Of Mines, Through Mining Engineer, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7246/2025 Rajendra Kumar Jat S/o Kalyan Jat, Resident Of Burdhako Ki Dhani, Village Datooli, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2712/2024] Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Director Of Mineral Works, Mines Department, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7579/2025 Ramparmeshwar Son of Shri Sohan Lal Jat, Aged About 26 Years, Resident of Gopal Nagar, Ladana Tehsil Phagi, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7625/2025 Mukesh Balai Son of Lalaram Balai, aged about 40 Years, Resident Of Balai Mohallan, Village Devadawas, Devali, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopendra Singh Shekhawat Mr. Vikram Singh Mr. Bharat Raj Yogi Mr. A.K.Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP Mr. Shubham Gupta for Mr. Rahul Lodha -AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they do not want to press these petitions on merits and a limited prayer has been made by them that these criminal misc. petitions be (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2712/2024] disposed of in the light of the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Girraj Meena Vs. State of Rajathan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 419/2025 and other connected matters) and the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Sanjib @ Sanjiv V/s. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6102/2022). 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the vehicles in question have been seized for illegal activity i.e. for illegal mining of Bajri. Counsel submits that the aforesaid issue has been taken seriously by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad while deciding the SLP (Criminal) Nos. 106-107/2021 on 11.07.2023. Counsel submits that the directions issued in the case of Girraj Meena (Supra) and Sanjib @Sanjiv (Supra) are not complying with the statutory provisions contained under Rules 54 and 60 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017 and they are not conforming with the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Counsel submits that in the case of Jagdish (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has issued a direction for release of such type of vehicles only after deposition of the compounding fee, royalty of the seized mineral cost and the penalty amount for environment improvement in terms of the directions issued by the NGT. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, unless and until the terms and directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court has not been followed with, the petitioners are not entitled to get the custody of their seized vehicles. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2712/2024] 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the both sides, all these petitions stand disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh applications before the Court below. In case, such applications are submitted by the petitioners, it is expected from the Court below to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 5. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/74-79