[2025:RJ-JP:46913]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5487/2023 Pradeep Kumar S/o Satbeer Singh, Resident Of Rapadiya Panti, Baalu, Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5490/2023 Rajkumar S/o Mahipal, R/o Flat No. 4/304, Tulip Petals, Patodi Marg, Sector No. 89, Garahi Harsaru, Gurugram, District Gurugram, Haryana.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashvin Garg assisted by Mr.Ripu Daman Singh Mr.Kuldeep Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

20/11/2025

1. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these criminal misc. petitions, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both the petitions are decided by this common order.

2. Both the petitions have been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Tijara, District Alwar by which the application submitted by the petitioners seeking Supurdagai of the guns has been rejected.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, two different revision the petitions were submitted by the petitioners, however, both petitions have been rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 06.06.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have not used the aforesaid guns, but their guns have been recovered at the instance of the other co-accused persons. Counsel submits that an application was submitted by the petitioners seeking supurdagi of the aforesaid guns, but the trial Court has rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 20.04.2023 on technical count that the investigation is pending and the charge- sheet has not been submitted. Counsel submits that now, the charge-sheet has been submitted, therefore, appropriate orders be passed for release of the aforesaid guns, in favour of the petitioners on supurdagi.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that after investigation, it has been found that the petitioners have provided these two guns to the co-accused persons, who have used the same in commission of the offence and they are habitual offenders. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get supurdagi of the aforesaid guns and the instant petitions are liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the guns of the petitioners have been recovered at the instance of the co-accused persons, though there is no allegation of using these guns against the petitioners, but the same have been recovered at the instance of the other co-accused persons and the petitioners have been impleaded as accused for commission of the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, but looking to the fact that after, investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and the trial will take its own time to conclude, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the trial Court to handover the guns in question to the petitioners, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court, on the following conditions:-

a) That the petitioners shall keep the guns so released intact and shall not change their identification.

b) That the petitioners shall produce the guns as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

c) That the petitioners shall furnish the photographs of the guns in question showing its intactness etc.

d) At the time of release, the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the effect that the guns in question shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the petitio