1 2025:CGHC:14520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1080 of 2025 1 - Bristi Vishwas W/o Kumar Sanu Aged About 24 Years Present R/o Andheri East Mumbai (Maharashtra), Permanent R/o Village- Gogri, Police Station- Gogri, Tehsil- Jamalpur, District Khagdiya, Bihar. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26/03/2025 1. The present petition is being filed by the present petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 10/2024 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, arising out of order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Case No. RCC/6924/2023 by learned 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg by which the order for confiscation of ornaments/jewelry is passed. 2. Brief facts of the case is that a complaint was filed before the police averring that Kumar Sanu (husband of the petitioner) had taken amount of Rs. 2500 from several women in the area in lieu of giving them employment. Kumar Sanu portrayed himself as the director/proprietor of Homegrown Corporation and took amount as registration fees and assured that candidate who registered will have to make garlands of black pearls and in lieu of which they will get Rs. 3500/-. However, later the accused closed the office and ran away with the amount. Upon the complaint filed by the persons aggrieved a case bearing Crime No. 52/2023 was registered before respondent police against 2 persons. It has been alleged that the accused persons have duped around 2 crores. The charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court which has been registered as RCC/6924/2023 which is pending before JMFC, Durg (C.G.) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC along with Section 66 D of IT Act, 2000. The husband of the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023 subject to the conditions as under: 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that on applicant’s executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: 3 (a) the applicant shall furnish details of movable and immovable property held by him and his dependent family members and he shall not alienate any immovable property held by him without prior permission of the concerned Court, till conclusion of the trial. 3. During the investigation one gold chain with locket of about 27.07 gms (cost around 2 lakh rupees) was seized from the husband of the petitioner along with other items. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking custody of the said gold chain which was seized by the police. The petitioner also placed on record the bills of the said chain showing her ownership over the said gold chain. The learned trial court admitted the ownership of the said gold chain with locket. However, application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is facing trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not an accused in the said crime. Also, the ownership of the articles is not in dispute. Merely because the articles were seized from the husband of the petitioner who is the accused in the offence, the custody of the article cannot be denied. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Sunderbai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and order passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 5 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station 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. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the petitioner has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and it is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said article is kept in the Malkhana in the Police Station, rather the said article can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming herself to be the owner of the article, so that she can use it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal desai(supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 10/2024 is hereby set aside. 9. In view of the above, it is directed that the said gold chain with locket weighing around 27.07 gms be immediately released in favour of the petitioner as interim custody on the following condition that the petitioner would supply bill of the aforesaid gold chain and furnish supurdnama a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lakh rupees only) with one surety in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of 6 the said article. It is also pertinent that the said article shall be submitted by the petitioner itself on its own cost, if need so arises. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition is allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima