Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 30.07.2022 passed by Ld. Additional Session Judge, Pathankot, whereby prayer on behalf of petitioner for release of gold and silver articles/ornaments i.e. gold chain, gold kante, Taviti, silver panjeban, Churian and Rs.59,500/-, on supurdari has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, facts of the case are that present FIR No.77 dated 13.04.2022 was registered at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, under Section 21 7 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, with the allegations that on search of Co- accused Harjinder Singh and Gobind Singh alias Raman, one grams of heroin each and one syringe from both were recovered. On the disclosure statement of accused Harjinder Singh, petitioner / Maya Devi and Rajat Kumar alias Gurdev Singh were also nominated in this case followed by their arrest and from the possession of petitioner Maya Devi gold as well as silver articles/ornaments i.e. gold chain, gold chain, gold kante, Taviti, silver panjeban, Churian besides cash of Rs.59,500/- were recovered. Subsequently, Petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by the ld. Trial Court, followed by which, she filed an application for release of aforementioned articles before the ld. Additional Session Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2022.

3. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.07.2022.

4. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 30.07.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ornaments and the money are lying idle at the Police Station which would be rendered junk and useless with the passage of time as there are no proper arrangements to keep those articles in the police station. She further submits that the present petitioner is the owner of gold and silver articles which are in fact part of her istridhan and the money was earned from her orchard business and therefore, ld. Court erred in law by not releasing the above said articles on superdari during the pendency of the trial, as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. In support of her contentions, she places reliance upon:

i. “Kapil Jha v. State of Madhya Pradesh”, (Madhya Pradesh)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1937648 in case bearing no MCRC No. 4636 of 2022 decided on 27.1.2022.

ii. “Satpal v. State of Haryana”, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1766262 in case bearing no CRM-M-22871 of 2020 decided on 8.10.2020.

iii. “Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana”, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2042889 in case bearing no CRM-M-28647 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022.

iv. “Tilak Ram v. State of H.P.”, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2057903 in case bearing no Criminal Revision No. 143 of 2022 decided on 14.9.2022.

5. On the other hand, prayer made herein has been opposed by learned State counsel while submitting that the allegations levelled against petitioner are of serious nature and the recovered articles being part of case property cannot be released on superdari.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as the law cited at the Bar. I find force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as no purpose is going to be served by keeping the recovered articles for a long duration in the police custody; rather it becomes a burden on the state itself. For the purpose of disposal of property there is Chapter XXXIV in Cr.P.C. wherein specific provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. has been carved out for proper custody thereof pending trial, which is defined as under:-

“ Section 451