Order

1. Instant Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.09.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Cr. Misc. Case No.84/2025 (arising out of FIR No.37/2025, registered at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore for offences under Sections 8/25 & 8/21 of NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act), whereby learned Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 of BNSS for releasing the cash amounting to Rs.2,53,000/- belonging to him, on supurdginama.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Special Judge has erred in not allowing the application under Section 503 of BNSS for handing over on Supurdagi the cash recovered from the petitioner’s house which the petitioner claimed as his own. It is submitted that the amount so recovered were self earned money of the petitioner by selling castor bean crop and the same were seized from the petitioner’s room in his own house and thus, the same will be treated as his own property and accordingly, it is required to be released to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that alleged recovered amount is not preceeds of the crime and offence punishable under NDPS Act. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in S.B Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4165/2020 : Narendra Kumar Harsh Versus State of Rajasthan, decided on 04.11.2020 whereby this Court after considering the law relating to release of cash amount recovered in any case has directed as under:-

"I have considered the submissions.

In MECTEC Firm Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) delivered by me, I had considered the law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & ors. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has observed with regard to release of valuable articles and currency notes as under:

"11. With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or sliver 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, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.

12. For this purposes, 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 panchanama 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 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs or such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition.

14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in police custody, it would be open to the SIIO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification, However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Offi