Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010162652024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./974/2024 KRISHNA KANWAR KADEL S/O SRI JAGDISH PRASAD KADEL, P/R/O BIDASAR, P.S.-BIDASAR, DIST- CHURU, RAJASTHAN, PIN CODE-3331501. P/R/A ARYA NAGAR, NATUN BASTI, P.S.-BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI-781009, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:BIDHAN DAS SI STF POLICE STATION ASSAM GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, MR H ROHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 04.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel Mr.Y.S. Mannan appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.K. Baishya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application u/s 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in STF PS Case No. Page No.# 2/2 07/2023. In that case, 585 gms. of gold was seized from the petitioner. The petitioner made a prayer seeking custody of the seized gold. 3. It may be stated that police recovered an amount of ₹22,70,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakh seventy thousand) from Himangshu Paul. Later on, it was presumed that the petitioner wanted to buy his own gold by paying money and on that issue the prayer for custody was rejected. 4. Mr. Mannan submits that the said money was given to Himangshu Paul for gold testing. Mr. Mannan has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted as under : “With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.” 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. I have also gone through the impugned judgment. 6. This Court is satisfied that the money that was recovered from Himangshu Paul was actually given by the petitioner to buy a gold testing machine. The learned court below has erroneously interpreted the acts and arrived at an incorrect finding. 7. This Court is of the opinion that keeping the seized gold in custody would not serve any purpose. 8. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. 9. It is hereby directed that the impugned order 03.01.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in STF PS Case No. 07/2023 stands set aside. The seized gold shall be given in the custody of the present petitioner on taking a bond of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh). With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant