Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21946) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1159 of 2024 ----- Dr. Sudarshan Prasad Singh @ Dr. Sudarshan Prasad, son of Late Raja Singh, resident of Koiribandh, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- The Central Bureau of Investigation, Special, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Party. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharati, Advocate ----- Order No.12 Date: 24.07.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 21st June, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in MCA No.2791 of 2023, concerning R.C. Case No.13(A) of 2005-D, whereby the petitioner’s application dated 5th August, 2023 for release of the seized property has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner, who happened to be Medical Superintendent in BCCL, Dhanbad, is an accused in the aforesaid case with the allegation of accumulating disproportionate asset. 4. Subsequent to investigation and filing of the chargesheet, the cognizance under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken against the petitioner. Further, charge against him was also framed under the aforesaid penal provisions on 6th June, 2016 and is presently facing trial. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21946) p. 2 5. As per the charge-sheet, various gold and silver ornaments were seized from the locker of the accused which have also been made part of the disproportionate asset/income of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the charge against the petitioner was framed way back on 6th June, 2016, the aforesaid items i.e. gold and silver ornaments kept with the CBI under the order of the Trial Court should be released, as the petitioner and his family members are in need of the same. The continuance of the trial for unreasonably long period has also put the petitioner in financial strain. 7. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 21st June, 2024 has erroneously rejected petitioner’s application seeking release of the aforesaid ornaments, ignoring the fact that even if those ornaments are released in his favour, the trial will not be adversely affected. 8. Countering the said argument, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel for the CBI, submits that the trial in this case is continuing and 24 charge-sheet witnesses have already been examined. Though several other charge-sheet witnesses are yet to be examined, yet owing to the fact that there is no special court in Dhanbad for trying the cases in which the CBI is Investigating Agency, the present trial has not yet concluded. He also submits that seized ornaments are the material evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be released during pendency of the trial. In fact, in a disproportionate asset case, the onus is always on the accused to prove that the assets acquired during Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21946) p. 3 the check period are not disproportionate to his/her known source of income. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 21st June, 2024 has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application seeking release of gold and silver ornaments. 9. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is facing trial in R.C. Case No.13(A) of 2005-D with the charge of accumulating the asset disproportionate to his known source of income. In course of investigation, the CBI has seized certain gold and silver ornaments, which by the order of the Court, are still lying in the custody of the CBI. 10. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 497 of BNSS, 2023 provides that when any property is produced before any Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial during any investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the investigation, 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 or the Magistrate may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. 11. 11. It is, thus, clear from the aforesaid provision that if any property is produced before the concerned criminal court, the said court may pass appropriate order for the proper custody of the property Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21946) p. 4 produced before it pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial and if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is necessary in the given situation, the Court may order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary. 12. It is well settled principle of law that the power under section 451 Cr.P.C should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously so that that the owner of the article should not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. If the material on record indicates that a petition under section 451 Cr.P.C is filed by a rightful claimant, the seized articles is to be handed over to him after preparing detailed proper Panchnama of such articles, taking photographs of the same and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial. When there is no doubt about the ownership of the property produced before the court, the same may be handed over to the claimant during the pendency of the criminal trial in exercise of power under section 451 of Cr.P.C. 13. However, in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is of accumulation of asset disproportionate to his known source of income. Thus, ownership of the ornaments seized from the locker of the petitioner is itself under cloud and the same is to be proved by the petitioner by adducing sufficient evidence that the seized property either does not belong to him or is not the part of his disproportionate asset. In the criminal cases relation to disproportionate asset, when any property is seized from Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21946) p. 5 possession of a public servant which is not satisfactorily accounted for, then it is presumed that such public servant has intentionally enriched himself which is disproportionate to his known source of income. 14. In the present case, the trial is continuing and 24 charge-sheet witnesses have already been examined. 15. According to the learned counsel for the CBI, the gold/silver ornaments, in question, are also part of the exhibits. Though the trial has continued for a reasonably long period, yet that itself cannot be a ground to order for release of the ornaments/jewelleries which are the part of exhibits in the present case. 16. Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 also does not provide that the Court is under any statutory obligation to release or dispose of the property during trial, unless the same is likely to get destroyed in course of time due to natural decay etc. 17. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that no error has been made by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking release of the gold and silver ornaments by the impugned order dated 21st June, 2024. 18. The present criminal revision being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 24th July, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 27.07.2026