2025:JHHC:18191 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.745 of 2024 …. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o Sri Satyanarayan Singh, R/o 201, Girja Apartment, Ramson Residency, Binay Vihay Colony, Khatal Road, P.O. Dhaiya, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand ……Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P …… CAV on 13.06.2025 Pronounced on 07.07.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Court of Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge at Nagar Untari in Misc. Criminal Application No.12 of 2024 arising out of Bhawanathpur P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. No.224 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Section 302/201/120B/34 of IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act, wherein the learned Additional Session Judge at Nagar Untari dismissed the miscellaneous criminal application of the petitioner for the release of the seized pistol which is pending the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari at Garhwa. 2. The Informant had lodged the FIR on 11.12.2020 against the accused Awadh Bihari Singh and others for the offences under Section 302,201,120-B/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and in this fardbeyan, the Informant stated that Arvind Kumar Singh (deceased) was his brother-in-law, who had gone with his friend 2025:JHHC:18191 2 Govind Singh to participate in the marriage ceremony along-with his friends Awadh Bihari Singh, Vinay Singh and others to Bhawanathpur by his vehicle. When Arvind Kumar Singh did not return from marriage then the Informant and his family members tried to find about him. Thereafter, the informant came to know that in the marriage ceremony a gun was fired in the night and the deceased got injured due to firing and he had been admitted to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj. It is also alleged that the informant went to the hospital and identified the dead body of the deceased and the vehicle of deceased parked in the hospital. Then the informant tried to contact Awadh Bihari Singh through phone but he was unable to contact him. The informant further stated that deceased’s friend Awadh Bihari Singh, Vinay Bhushan Singh and Dhananjay Singh did not inform about the incident and took the deceased to the hospital and left him there unattended. The accused persons had killed Arvind Kumar Singh due to certain conspiracy and they did not inform about the incident to the informant or the police. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 10.05.2025 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the police had seized a pistol in connection with the above noted case. It is submitted that the petitioner is the Owner of the seized pistol having all the relevant documents establishing his genuineness and ownership. It is submitted that apart from the petitioner, there are no other claimants of the seized pistol. It is further submitted that if the pistol is kept unused for a long period 2025:JHHC:18191 3 of time then it will be damaged and lose its value which will cause grave loss to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a contractor and a law abiding citizen and that being in such profession, the petitioner receives frequent death threats. Thus, the sized pistol in favour of the petitioner may be released for the safety purpose of the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283) expressed its view with regard to seized article/property and held that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously while dealing with the disposal of seized property. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner Satyanarayan Singh had produced the pistol, 112 live cartridges to the police which were seized by the police and a seizure list was prepared. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 16.03.2021 in B.A. No.2899 of 2021 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner and other persons had taken deceased Arbind Kumar Singh to the hospital which rules out the allegation of conspiracy. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and 2025:JHHC:18191 4 proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR along with other accused persons who had fired during the time of marriage ceremony in the Guest House due to which one Arvind Kumar Singh sustained gun shot injuries and due to which he died. It is submitted that the petitioner had fled away from the place of occurrence without taking the injured to the hospital. It is submitted that the petitioner had made indiscriminate firing due to which the said Arvind Kumar Singh died. It is submitted that the petitioner has violated the terms of license granted by the District Administration. It is submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt for firing at the wedding party from his license pistol. It is submitted that the seized pistol has to be marked as Material Exhibit in this case. 8. It is submitted that the pistol, cartridges along with other seized articles were sent for test in Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi, Jharkhand. The received test report shows that seized pistol as well as the jeans pant were also sent also to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi Jharkhand which shows that there were two holes marked A-1 and A-3 were found on the blue colour jeans caused due to impact of the copper jacketed bullet in powder range. Hence there is no merit in this Criminal Revision Application accordingly this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 9. Perused the records of this case and considered the submissions made by both the sides. 10. It appears that on 09.12.2020, the petitioner and others had made firing in the air on the occasion of marriage ceremony of one Nitu Singh and due to which one person namely Arvind 2025:JHHC:18191 5 Kumar Singh sustained two bullet injuries in his both thighs and was brought to the Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj and later on he died and thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner and appears on 11.12.2020 by the Informant. 11. It appears that during course of investigation, the father of the petitioner had handed over the said pistol and 112 live cartridges and the original arms license paper in the name of the petitioner to the Police Officials i.e. I.O on 28.02.2021 and for which police had prepared the production-cum-seizure list. 12. It appears that the petitioner is a contractor and the license to the petitioner was granted on 2019 for the pistol bearing no.01/2019 by the District Administration, Dhanbad. 13. It also appears that the pistol of the petitioner is being kept in the police station for a long period on 28.02.2021. 14. It appears that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent except this case on account of firing made during marriage ceremony on 10.12.2019. 15. It appears that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others on 11.12.2020 for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. 16. It also appears that the police has submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and two others namely Awadh Bihari Singh and Vinay Singh on 12.12.2020. 17. Thereafter, it appears that the cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 06.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II, 201/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. 18. Before coming to the merit of this case, it would be relevant to refer Section 451 of Cr.P.C which reads as follows:- “Section-451:- Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial 2025:JHHC:18191 6 in certain cases.—When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “property” includes— (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody; (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.” 19. It has been held in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 at paragraphs Nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as follows:- Para-10:- To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised promptly and at the earliest. Valuable articles and currency notes Para-11:- 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. Para:-12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after: (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security. Para-13:- For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition. 2025:JHHC:18191 7 Para-14:- In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. Vehicles Para:-15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time. Para-16:- However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned. Para-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. 20. It has been held in the case of Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of Jharkhand passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 1062 of 2024 on 16.01.2025 at paragraph no.8 as follows:- “Para-8:- Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is 2025:JHHC:18191 8 pertinent to mention here that as has been held in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), it is not desirable that seized articles in connection with any criminal case unnecessarily be kept in police station. It is also undisputed fact that if a Pistol is kept unused for a considerable period of time without any maintenance, the same is likely to be damaged and loss its value. There is no dispute that the petitioner is having a valid arm’s license, the copy of which has been filed in this Writ Petition as well. The only hindrance before the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi was that the same could not be verified but absence of verification does not mean non-existence of the arm’s license of the petitioner. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is ex-army personnel.” 21. It is evident that the police is keeping the said pistol in the Police Station for the long period and it will be useless after lapse of time. 22. It appears that the learned Court below has not followed the mandate in the judgment of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 Vol.10 SCC 283 and which has been followed by several judgments also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the Jharkhand High Court. 23. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in the light of the order dated 16.01.2025 passed in WP(Cr.) No.1062 of 2024, the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge at Nagar Untari in Misc. Criminal Application No.12 of 2024 arising out of Bhawanathpur P.S. Case No.234 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. No.224 of 2023, is set aside and the learned Court below is directed to release the pistol to the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 by taking necessary sureties. 2025:JHHC:18191 9 However, the petitioner will not change the nature and colour of the pistol and shall produce the same before the learned Court below as and when required by the learned Trial Court below. 24. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 745 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of with the observation mentioned above. 25. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-