Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petitioner, a theft complainant, sought custody of seized gold and silver ornaments on supurdagi after lower courts refused release solely for want of purchase bills or proof of ownership. The petitioner had lodged a written complaint on 23.12.2024 regarding theft of her ornaments, leading to registration of FIR No.320/2024 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Alwar. During investigation, police recovered the ornaments along with a Registration Certificate and seized them. The petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate seeking release of both the ornaments and the Registration Certificate on supurdagi. By order dated 10.03.2025, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar partly allowed the application by releasing the Registration Certificate but refused to hand over the gold and silver ornaments. The petitioner's revision before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Alwar in Criminal Regular Revision No. 32/2025 was dismissed on 13.08.2025, affirming the magistrate's order. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS. The core legal issue was whether absence of purchase bills could justify refusal to release seized property when no other person claimed ownership and the FIR described the articles. The petitioner argued that she was the rightful owner, relied on photographs of the jewellery, stated that the ornaments were ancestral and no purchase bills were available, and contended that keeping the ornaments in police custody served no purpose. She also expressed readiness to furnish an affidavit and cited Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The High Court examined the records and found that recovery was made during investigation of an FIR filed by the petitioner herself, the FIR contained a clear description of the stolen articles, the petitioner identified the articles during investigation, the prosecution maintained that the recovered articles were stolen from the petitioner's house and recovered from the accused, and no other person claimed ownership. The Court held that denial of custody solely on the ground of non-production of ownership proof or bills was unreasonable, especially when no one else was claiming the articles. Following the Supreme Court's guidance in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders dated 13.08.2025 and 10.03.2025 to the extent they refused release of the gold and silver ornaments, and directed the trial court to release the ornaments on supurdagi to the petitioner on conditions: furnishing an undertaking/affidavit regarding identity and production of the ornaments, and undertaking not to sell or make changes to render them unidentifiable. Stay application and pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Release of Seized Property (Supurdagi) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - Seized gold and silver ornaments recovered from accused during investigation of theft committed at complainant's house - The High Court set aside orders refusing release on supurdagi and directed trial court to hand over ornaments to the complainant on furnishing undertaking/affidavit and undertaking not to sell or alter - Held that seized articles can be released on appropriate terms and conditions to prevent decay, following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 (Paras 7-8). B) Criminal Law - Proof of Ownership - Absence of purchase bills no bar to release when no other claim - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The complainant's FIR contained clear description of stolen articles, she identified them during investigation, prosecution maintained they were stolen from her house and recovered from accused, and no other person claimed ownership - Held that denial of custody solely on ground of non-production of ownership proof or bills was unreasonable, especially when no other claimant (Paras 6, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and revisional court erred in refusing to release gold and silver ornaments on supurdagi solely on the ground that the petitioner did not produce purchase bills or proof of ownership; whether seized articles can be released on supurdagi under Section 528 BNSS and the guidelines in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Orders dated 13.08.2025 and 10.03.2025 to the extent of refusing to release gold and silver ornaments on supurdagi are set aside. Trial court is directed to release the ornaments in question on supardagi to the petitioner on conditions: (i) furnish undertaking/affidavit regarding identity and production of ornaments; (ii) undertake not to sell the ornaments to anyone and not to make or allow any changes to make them unidentifiable. Stay application and pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Seized articles can be released on appropriate terms and conditions to prevent decay while in custody
- absence of purchase bills or proof of ownership cannot be the sole ground to refuse release when no other person claims ownership
- FIR description and identification during investigation support ownership claim
- compliance with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat guidelines
