Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurudyal Pachori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124
1 MCRC-3974-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3974 of 2026
GURUDYAL PACHORI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ramrajya Singh Dangi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed seeking the following relief:
अतः माननीय यायालय से वन ाथना है क आवेदक
क ओर से तुत व वध आपरािधक आवेदन प अंतगत धारा
482 वीकार कर याियक म ज ेट थम ण
े ी द डािधकार
महोदय लहार जला िभंड के आदे श दनांक 24/06/2023 एवं
16/09/2025 को िनर त करने क कृ पा कर एवं आवेदक के ओर से तुत धारा 451 द ड या सं हता का आवेदन वीकार करने क कृ पा करे । अ य सहायता माननीय यायालय जो आवेदक के हत म हो दान करने क कृ पा करे As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, Gurudayal Pachauri, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Lahar on 30.05.2023 alleging Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124 2 MCRC-3974-2026 that he had gone to Agra to visit his relatives. Upon his return, he found the main gate of his house open and noticed that the box kept inside his room had been tampered with. On verification, it was found that cash amounting to Rs.15,000/- along with two gold gents' rings and one gold ladies' ring had been stolen. During the course of investigation, on the basis of evidence collected, three gold rings were recovered and seized from accused Mukesh Soni, and cash amounting to Rs.1,200/- was seized from the possession of accused Raju alias Rafiq, as reflected in the seizure memo. The seized jewellery was directly connected with the offence in question and was required to be produced before the Trial Court for the purposes of identification, corroboration of evidence, and to establish the chain of circumstances against the accused persons. The petitioner thereafter filed applications under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind, seeking interim custody of the seized property. However, the said applications were rejected vide the impugned orders dated 24.06.2023 and 16.09.2025. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the impugned orders dated 24.06.2023 and 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind, rejecting the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., are contrary to settled principles of law and deserve to be set aside, as the petitioner is the complainant and victim of the offence, who himself lodged the FIR reporting theft of two Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124 3 MCRC-3974-2026 gents' gold rings and one ladies' gold ring, and the seized property corresponds exactly with the description in the FIR. The petitioner produced valid purchase bills before the Trial Court, prima facie establishing ownership, and no rival claim has been raised by any third party. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed; therefore, continued retention of the seized jewellery serves no investigative purpose.
It is further submitted that mere pendency of trial is not a valid ground to deny interim custody, particularly when the identity and evidentiary value of the property can be preserved through panchnama, photographs, and identification during trial. The petitioner has undertaken to produce the seized property before the Court as and when required and has assured that the same shall neither be sold nor tampered with in any manner and he shall abide by all conditions imposed by the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and General Insurance Council vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 6 SCC 768 has categorically held that valuable articles should not be kept in court custody for an indefinite period and should be released to the rightful claimant subject to appropriate safeguards. Jewellery articles, if kept in malkhana for long durations, are prone to damage or substitution, whereas release on supurdgi better serves the ends of justice.
It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate rejected the applications on vague apprehensions without recording any specific reasons as to how release of the property would prejudice the prosecution case, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124 4 MCRC-3974-2026 thereby amounting to non-application of mind. This Court in Rajkumar vs. State of M.P., 2014 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 140, has held that denial of supurdgi to the complainant without cogent reasons constitutes improper exercise of jurisdiction. Considering the likelihood of delay in final disposal of the trial, continued withholding of the seized jewellery would cause undue hardship to the petitioner and defeat the object of Section 451 Cr.P.C.; hence, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted in the interest of justice.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the complainant in the present case and the seized property consists of gold jewellery, namely, two gents' rings and one ladies' ring, which corresponds to the description of the stolen articles mentioned in the First Information Report. It is also undisputed that the petitioner produced purchase bills relating to the said jewellery before the Trial Court, thereby establishing a prima facie claim of ownership. Admittedly, no rival claim has been set up by any third party.
It further emerges from the record that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. In such circumstances, continued retention of the seized jewellery in court custody or malkhana does not serve any useful purpose. The evidentiary value of the seized property can be sufficiently safeguarded by preparation of a proper panchnama, photographing and/or videographing the articles, and by imposing appropriate conditions at the time of release.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124 5 MCRC-3974-2026 This Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the applications filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. on vague and general apprehensions that release of the property may adversely affect the case, without recording any specific reasons or indicating as to how such release would prejudice the prosecution. Such an approach is clearly contrary to the settled legal position.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and General Insurance Council vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) has unequivocally held that valuable articles should not be allowed to remain in court custody for an indefinite period and should ordinarily be released to the person entitled thereto, subject to suitable safeguards. The impugned orders have been passed in clear disregard of the aforesaid binding precedents.
This Court is also conscious of the fact that trials in such cases are likely to take considerable time for final adjudication. Keeping jewellery articles in custody for an indefinite period would cause unnecessary hardship to the complainant and would defeat the very object of Section 451 Cr.P.C.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 24.06.2023 and 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind, suffer from non-application of mind and have resulted in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124 6 MCRC-3974-2026 The impugned orders dated 24.06.2023 and 16.09.2025 are hereby quashed. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. stands allowed, and the seized jewellery shall be released in interim custody to the petitioner, subject to compliance with the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a supurdginama with adequate solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, equivalent to the value of the seized property as assessed by the Trial Court.
(ii) Prior to release, a detailed panchnama of the seized jewellery shall be prepared, and clear photographs and/or videography of the property shall be taken and kept on record for purposes of identification during trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall file a written undertaking that he shall not sell, mortgage, alter, damage, or otherwise dispose of the seized jewellery in any manner whatsoever and shall produce the same before the Trial Court as and when directed.
(iv) The interim custody shall remain subject to final orders to be passed at the conclusion of the trial.
(v) In case of breach of any of the conditions, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the interim custody and take appropriate action in accordance with law, including forfeiture of the supurdginama bond.
(vi) The Trial Court may impose any additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4124
7 MCRC-3974-2026 conditions deemed necessary to safeguard the interests of justice and to preserve the evidentiary value of the seized property.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 11:01:51 AM