2025:CGHC:14520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1080 of 2025

1 - Bristi Vishwas W/o Kumar Sanu Aged About 24 Years Present R/o Andheri East Mumbai (Maharashtra), Permanent R/o Village- Gogri, Police Station- Gogri, Tehsil- Jamalpur, District Khagdiya, Bihar.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. for the State.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

26/03/2025

1. The present petition is being filed by the present petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 10/2024 by the learned 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, arising out of order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Case No. RCC/6924/2023 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg by which the order for confiscation of ornaments/jewelry is passed.

2. Brief facts of the case is that a complaint was filed before the police averring that Kumar Sanu (husband of the petitioner) had taken amount of Rs. 2500 from several women in the area in lieu of giving them employment. Kumar Sanu portrayed himself as the director/proprietor of Homegrown Corporation and took amount as registration fees and assured that candidate who registered will have to make garlands of black pearls and in lieu of which they will get Rs. 3500/-. However, later the accused closed the office and ran away with the amount. Upon the complaint filed by the persons aggrieved a case bearing Crime No. 52/2023 was registered before respondent police against 2 persons. It has been alleged that the accused persons have duped around 2 crores. The charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court which has been registered as RCC/6924/2023 which is pending before JMFC, Durg (C.G.) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC along with Section 66 D of IT Act, 2000. The husband of the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023 subject to the conditions as under:

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that on applicant’s executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

(a) the applicant shall furnish details of movable and immovable property held by him and his dependent family members and he shall not alienate any immovable property held by him without prior permission of the concerned Court, till conclusion of the trial.

3. During the investigation one gold chain with locket of about 27.07 gms (cost around 2 lakh rupees) was seized from the husband of the petitioner along with other items. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking custody of the said gold chain which was seized by the police. The petitioner also placed on record the bills of the said chain showing her ownership over the said gold chain. The learned trial court admitted the ownership of the said gold chain with locket. However, application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is facing trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not an accused in the said crime. Also, the ownership of the articles is not in dispute. Merely because the articles were seized from the husband of the petitioner who is the accused in the offence, the custody of the article cannot be denied. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Sunderbai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 451 of C