Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gurudyal Pachori – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 3974/2026
Key Points: - The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed, impugned orders quashed, and Section 451 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed (!) (!) . - Seized jewellery (two gents’ rings and one ladies’ ring) corresponds to FIR description and ownership is prima facie established by purchase bills; no third-party rival claim (!) (!) . - Investigation completed and charge-sheet filed; continued retention in custody deemed unnecessary; safeguards to be ensured via panchnama, photographs, and conditions on release (!) . - The ground for rejection by the Magistrate was vague apprehensions; non-recording of specific reasons deemed improper exercise of jurisdiction (!) . - Precedents cited (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai; General Insurance Council) hold that valuable articles should not remain in indefinite court custody and should be released to rightful claimant with safeguards (!) (!) . - Interim custody release subject to: supurdginama with solvent surety; detailed panchnama; photographs/videography; written undertaking not to sell or damage; compliance with future court directions; possible breach consequences; additional safeguards as needed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Trial timeline acknowledged; release aims to prevent hardship and preserve evidentiary value; court may impose conditions to safeguard justice (!) (!) .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 2 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 (cid:9)यायालय से (cid:13)वन(cid:15) (cid:16)ाथन(cid:18) ा है (cid:21)क आवेदक कti ओर से (cid:16)(cid:28)तुत (cid:13)व(cid:13)वध आपरािधक आवेदन प(cid:33) अंतगत(cid:18) धारा 482 (cid:28)वीकार कर (cid:9)याियक म(cid:36)ज(cid:28)(cid:38)ेट (cid:16)थम (cid:40)णे ी द(cid:42)डािधकार(cid:44) महोदय लहार (cid:36)जला िभंड के आदेश (cid:21)दनांक 24/06/2023 एवं 16/09/2025 को िनर(cid:28)त करने कti कृपा कर(cid:50) एवं आवेदक के ओर से (cid:16)(cid:28)तुत धारा 451 द(cid:42)ड (cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:51)या सं(cid:21)हता का आवेदन (cid:28)वीकार करने कti कृपा करे । अ(cid:9)य सहायता माननीय (cid:9)यायालय जो आवेदक के
(cid:21)हत म(cid:50) हो (cid:16)दान करने कti कृपा करे
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, Gurudayal Pachauri, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Lahar on 30.05.2023 alleging 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 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 Insuranc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
