1 2025:CGHC:59457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3717 of 2025 Rakesh Singh Bhadoriya S/o Leela Singh Bhadoriya Aged About 45 Years Presently Residing At Street No. 72, Quarter No. 82, Sector- 6, Behind B.S.F. Camp, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Ramnagar, Chashalga Naka, Police Station- Kila Gate, Gwalior, District : Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Newai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in M.J.C. Criminal No. 58/2025 whereby the learned court has rejected the application of the applicant under Section 497 of BNSS for grant of Supurdnama of hs licensed Pistol Model 7.62 MM, license, Magazine and round. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was previously working as a soldier (Sipahi) in the Central Industrial Security Forces and was lastly posted at Bhilai. In the year 2018 the petitioner met with a severe accident as a result of which he has taken voluntarily retirement from the service as he was not physically fit for service. Thereafter the petitioner is permanently staying at Bhilai and doing business of money lending to needy persons of which he has valid license also. It is worthy to mention that during his service period the petitioner bought a Pistol Model 7.62 MM of which he is the owner and the said pistol was duly licensed by the government authorities and said license was regularly renewed by the authorities. On 23.11.2024 at about 2:30 P.M. when the petitioner was sitting near station Maroda Choupati at that point of time one Shambhu Udiya and his brother-in-law (jija) who are acquainted with the petitioner came to him and demanded his XUV car for roaming around the area, the petitioner herein refused to give his car as a result both Shambhu and his brother-in-law abused him and 3 threatened to kill him and afterwards the petitioner came to his home. On the same day Shambu Udiya and his brother-in-law with an intent to kill the petitioner barged inside the house of the petitioner, where his family was also there in the house and these both persons started assaulting the petitioner during this time Shambhu Udiya took out a cutter knife from his pocket and assaulted petitioner in his neck so as to kill him and the petitioner tried to escape from the house and there the assailants followed the petitioner during run found his licensed pistol from the house and fired from his pistol in the air above so as to shy away Shambhu Udiya and his relative after which they fled the spot. The petitioner himself called Dial 112 police and went to hospital for treatment. After which the petitioner himself reported the incident to police authorities as a result the authorities registered a FIR against Shambhu Udiya and his brother-in-law for the offence punishable under section 109, 296, 3(5), 333, 351(3) of BNS bearing crime no. 351/2024. Copy of the FIR is annexed as ANNEXURE P-3. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner being the legal and licensed owner of the pistol is entitled for the same and the learned court below could have delivered the same to him on such condition. Learned court below failed to consider the fact that it is of no use to keep such seized pistol at the police station for a long period and could have passed appropriate order immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security or 4 the return of the pistol. Therefore, he prays for the release of the said pistol on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. He would further contend that the police authorities have raised no objection in granting pistol in favor of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. The 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 pistol 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: 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. 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; 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record 5 evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the applicant is the licensed owner of the pistol in question, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized pistol in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized pistol model 7.62 MM, license, magazine and round on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) is hereby set aside. The seized pistol is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the applicant on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the pistol, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said pistol be verified and proper Panchnama of the pistol be made. 6 (ii) Photographs of the pistol should be taken and bond should also be produced that the pistol would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs rupees) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of pistol. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima