2026:JHHC:21131 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2026 of 2026 --- 1. Urmila Sinha, wife of Shri Harihar Prasad Sinha, resident of H/24, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.- Doranda, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi 2. Praveen Kumar Sinha, son of Shri Harihar Prasad Sinha, resident of House No. 16, Sector-7, P.O. & P.S.- Sector 19, Union Territory of Chandigarh … … Petitioners Versus The Union of India through the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi …. … Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate Order No. 02 Dated: 17.07.2026 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.01.2026 (Anneuxre-6 to the present petition) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in Cr.Misc. Case No. 136 of 2025 arising out of R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R) whereby the petitioners’ prayer for release of the seized Locker No. 23 maintained at Allahabad Bank, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi in which, according to them, certain jewelleries are kept, has been rejected and the petitioners have been directed to comply the conditions as mentioned in the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the wife and the petitioner no. 2 is the son of Sri Harihar Prasad Sinha who happened to be an accused 2026:JHHC:21131 2 in R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R). Earlier, a petition invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner no. 1 before this Court being Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017 for quashing the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R) whereby her request for release of Locker No. 23 maintained in the aforesaid Bank was rejected. 3. A Bench of this court, vide order dated 05.12.2019, disposed of the said petition with following observation and direction: “9. This Court finds that a petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned court below for release of aforesaid Locker No.23 and its jewellery but the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the documents relating to her property. This Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute that the locker is in the name of the petitioner and her son and the petitioner has been operating the locker and nobody else has claimed the jewellery and the locker has remained seized since 1993. In such circumstances, the learned court below was not justified in refusing to release the jewellery for want of documents relating to the jewellery. Considering the fact that the jewellery and the locker are not material exhibit before the learned court below and as per the C.B.I, the same may be considered at a later stage of trial, this Court directs that the aforesaid locker and the jewellery found in the locker be released in favour of the petitioner and her son jointly in presence of her husband (accused) after: a) A fresh inventory is directed to be prepared giving details of the jewellery upon taking photographs of the jewellery as well as their respective weight in presence of the petitioner, her son as well as her husband and a Magistrate be deputed by learned court below for the aforesaid purpose. 2026:JHHC:21131 3 b) A clear undertaking by way of affidavit be taken from each one of them that they will not dispute that these ornaments were found in the said locker. c) A bond should also be furnished by the petitioner and her son that this jewellery will be produced before the learned court below as and when it is required and directed by the court concerned and the petitioner and her son a will not dispose of the jewellery during the pendency of the case. d) The learned court below shall also take proper security before release of the jewellery and the locker. 10. The learned court below is also directed to ensure that all the above formalities should be completed within a period of one month from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge CBI, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.23A/93-R, is hereby set aside to the extent it relates to the aforesaid locker No.23 in Allahabad Bank, Harmu Colony Branch, Ranchi. 12. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.” 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the said locker is in the joint name of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not take the follow-up action as was required in terms with the order dated 05.12.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017 since they did not have sufficient means to furnish the surety to the extent of the value of the jewellery. However, subsequently, Sri Harihar Prasad Sinha was acquitted of the charge in R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R) vide judgement dated 29.02.2024 (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the present petition). 2026:JHHC:21131 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that since Sri Harihar Prasad Sinha has now been acquitted, the condition as imposed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017 has lost its relevance and under the changed circumstance, the petitioners made fresh application before the learned trial court for release of the jewellery etc. lying in the locker in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to an affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party- CBI before the trial court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 136 of 2025 arising out of R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R) and submits that vide said affidavit, the CBI has made it clear that it has decided not to challenge the judgment dated 29.02.2024 before the High Court and the said matter has been given a quietus. It has also been averred in the said affidavit that the jewellery lying in the locker may be released in favour of the petitioners. 7. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-CBI, confirms the veracity of the contents of the said affidavit annexed with the present petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, Sri Harihar Prasad Sinha, who happened to be an accused in R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R), has been acquitted 2026:JHHC:21131 5 by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.02.2024. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the said acquittal, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners for release of Locker No. 23 maintained at Allahabad Bank, Harmu Housing Colony Branch, Ranchi in which CBI also filed its affidavit stating that decision had been taken not to challenge the judgment dated 29.02.2024 before a higher court of law. Importantly, the CBI also mentioned in the said affidavit that the jewellery etc. lying in the said Bank’s locker may be released in favour of the petitioners. Despite that, the learned trial court, vide order dated 28.01.2026, rejected the prayer of the petitioners primarily on the ground that they did not comply the earlier order of this Court passed on 05.12.2019 in Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017. 10. Section 452 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 498 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with passing of an order for disposal of property after conclusion of trial. 11. Sub-Section (1) of Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. provides that when an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. 2026:JHHC:21131 6 12. Sub-Section (2) of Section 452 of Cr.P.C. further provides that an order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. 13. On perusal of the provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 452 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the trial court, after conclusion of inquiry or trial, is empowered to pass appropriate order for delivery of any property or document to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise. Moreover, as per sub-section (2) of Section 452 of Cr.P.C., the trial court is further empowered to pass an order for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he/she will execute a bond with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court. 14. In the present case, the accused Harihar Prasad Sinha has already been acquitted of the charge and the CBI does not intend to prefer any appeal against the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court. Under the said circumstance, even if the petitioners did not take further steps in terms with the earlier order dated 05.12.2019 2026:JHHC:21131 7 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting such an application filed on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that they did not take the follow- up step pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2245 of 2017. In fact, after acquittal of Sri Harihar Prasad Sinha, there is no need of executing any bond or furnishing sureties in terms with the order dated 05.12.2019. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order 28.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in Cr.Misc. Case No. 136 of 2025 arising out of R.C. Case No. 23(A)/1993(R) is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned trial court is directed to issue an order for release of Locker No. 23 being maintained in the name of the petitioners at Allahabad Bank, Harmu Housing Colony Branch, Ranchi in their favour forthwith. 16. The present Cr.M.P. is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 17, 2026 Ritesh/ N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 20.07.2026