[2025:RJ-JP:49879] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1103/2025 Sahoon Khan S/o Hanif Khan, R/o Mev Mohalla, Village Akam Shah, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Depart- ment Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Superintendent Of Police, Deeg (Raj.). 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Amir Aziz For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025, issued by the S.H.O. Police Station Sikari, District Deeg under Section 107 of B.N.S.S. to the petitioner for production of the petitioner’s Income Tax Returns and for attachment of property belonging to the petitioner and his parents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R. No.91/2025 has been registered at Police Station Sikari, District Deeg under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 303(2), 111(2)(a), 313, 61(2) of BNS & Section 66D of IT Act, wherein the petitioner’s son Saikul has been impleaded as an accused. During his interrogation, the accused- [2025:RJ-JP:49879] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1103/2025] Saikul revealed that the proceeds from the alleged crime have been utilised to construct the house in question, upon the property belong to the petitioner and grand parents have been constructed. 3. Counsel submits that there is no evidence available on the record to show that the house in question has been constructed from the proceeds of the crime. Rather, the house in question was constructed by the accused-Saikul’s grand parents and the petitioner, and unless and until the son of the petitioner is found guilty of the alleged offence and it is proved that the house in question has been constructed from the proceeds of such crime, the impugned notice cannot be issued to seize the property of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the right to shelter is one of the facets of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An innocent person such as the petitioner cannot be deprived of the right to life by removing the shelter from above their heads, as this view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court “In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures” while deciding Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022. Counsel submits that under these circumstance, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that during the course of investigation in the impugned F.I.R. No.91/2025 registered at Police Station Sikari, District Deeg, the son of the petitioner was arrested and during his interrogation, he informed the Investigating Authority that from the proceeds of the crime, the house has been constructed on the subject land. On the basis of this information, a notice has also been issued to the petitioner under Section 107 of B.N.S.S. asking him to furnish the details of his Income Tax Return of last year. Counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:49879] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1103/2025] till date, no action has been taken for seizure of the subject property and only a notice has been issued for initiation of the proceedings. If at all, the petitioner or his son, they can submit their reply/ response before the concerned Magistrate, i.e., Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikari, District Deeg in Criminal Case No. 91/2025. Counsel submits that at a very premature stage, the petitioner has approached this Court, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the son of the petitioner Saikul was arrested in the impugned F.I.R. No.91/2025 by the Police Station Sikari, District Deeg, wherein he disclosed certain information with regard to the proceeds of the crime. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid interrogation report, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to furnish his Income Tax Returns from the previous years. 8. It appears hat during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer formed an opinion on the basis of the interrogation report of the accused that from the proceeds of the crime, construction has been done on the subject property, regarding which the details have been sought from the petitioner with respect to his Income Tax Return etc. and simultaneously, a notice under Section 107 of B.N.S.S. has been issued to the son of the petitioner Saikul for the purpose of attachment and forfeiture of the subject property. [2025:RJ-JP:49879] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1103/2025] 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, no adverse orders can be passed against the accused persons, who is claiming his right, title & interest over the subject property. It is a settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against them, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to them. If at all, the petitioner is claiming his right over the subject property, he would be at liberty to raise his objections before the Court, where the proceedings under Section 107 of B.N.S.S. are pending against the son of the petitioner. 10. It is expected from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding further in pursuance of the provisions contained under Sections 107 of B.N.S.S. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /81