THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 IN S.C NO 157/2024 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE GOLD ORNAMENTS I.E., 1. A GOLD BANGLE WEIGHING ABOUT 8 GRAMS, 2. A GOLD CHAIN WEIGHING ABOUT 16 GRAMS, 3) A GOLD RING WEIGHING ABOUT 1.74 GRAMS, 4) A NOSE RING WEIGHING ABOUT 0.40 GRAMS AND 5) A GOLD KARIMANI NECKLACE WEIGHING ABOUT 53 GRAMS (SEIZED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO 88/2024 OF KONAJE P.S UNDER PF NO.49/2024) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for Sri. Ashok Kumar Shetty K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in SC.No.157/2024 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru registered for the offence punishable under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS' for short).

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of K.Y. GURUPRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in WP.No.4606/2026 disposed on 03.03.2026.

4. This Court in the case of K.Y. GURUPRASAD (supra) following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMBALAL D. BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525 has held as follows:

"In the light of the issue being similar, the reasons for the possession of the cash being explained and that there being no rival claimant to the cash that is seized, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to release the cash in P.F.Nos.238 and 240 of 2025, in favour of the petitioner, by observing the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF GUJARAT, MANU/SC/1110/2002, wherein the Apex Court considering an identical circumstance has held as follows:

"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.

12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and

(3) after taking proper security.

13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bon