Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SATHISH KUMAR. A @
SATHISH KUMAR ANAND @
SATHISH KUMAR GUPTA,
S/O. ANAND KUMAR GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ND
R/AT NO. 331, 2 FLOOR,
ND
2 CROSS, BDA EWS SECTOR,
VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT,
TH
J. P. NAGAR, 8 BLOCK,
BENGALURU- 560 078.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 076.
REPRESENTED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KANCHAN AGARWAL,
W/O HARIKISHAN AGARWAL,
MAJOR,
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. HARIKISHAN AGARWAL,
S/O GANESHILAL AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.285, PINK CITY,
MOHAN ROAD, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH- 226 017.
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O DTD 14.03.2025]
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K., HCGP FOR R1- STATE;
SRI. BOJAPPA.K.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 454(1) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD 03.10.2024 PASSED IN SC.NO.1387/2010 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF
CLAIM FOR RELEASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS SEIZED AS PER
EX.P33 AND RETURN OF LOCKER KEY AS PER MO45.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
Appellant, a convict filed an application before the trial
Court under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., for release of seized gold
articles under Ex.P33, laptop, mobile phones and locker key-
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
MOs.4 to 6, MO.36 and MO.37 to his custody, which
application has been partly allowed by the learned Sessions
Judge, vide order dated 03.10.2024, which is challenged in
this appeal filed under Section 454(1) of Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant / applicant was convicted vide
Judgment dated 28.07.2017 by the Court of the Principal City
Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.1387/2010,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, for
committing the murder of his wife. He was sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.
3. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court was confirmed by this Court in
Crl.A.No.1586/2017 vide judgment dated 27.09.2018. It is
not in dispute that the SLP(Crl.)No.6990/2021 preferred
against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Apex
Court on 23.02.2022.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. After release of the appellant, he filed the
application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court,
for release of gold ornaments, Bank locker-key etc. The
learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order, partly allowed
the said application. The prayer was accepted insofar as
return of MO4-Nokia mobile phone, MO5-Motorola mobile
phone, MO6-Samsung mobile phone and the laptops marked
as MO.36 and MO.37. However insofar as release of the gold
ornaments seized under a mahazar at Ex.P33 and the prayer
to return the locker key marked as MO.45 was rejected.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the gold ornaments are purchased by the
appellant and before the trial Court, he has placed all the
materials to substantiate his claim. There was no rival claim,
as such the trial Court was not justified in rejecting his prayer
for release of the gold ornaments and the locker key. He
contended that the locker was maintained in Syndicate Bank
and it is standing in the joint name of the appellant and his
deceased-wife and appellant being the sole nominee and that
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
being so, the trial Court ought to have released the locker key
to the appellant. He further contented that the locker key and
the gold ornaments are not the proceeds of the Crime and
since, the locker key was seized at the behest of the accused,
he is entitled for the same. Learned counsel further contended
that under Section 45ZC of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949,
The appellant, being in joint custody of the Bank locker and
being the nominee, is entitled for the property kept in the
locker.
6. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3,
the parents of the deceased, would contend that the said
respondents were not party to the proceedings / application
filed before the trial Court and therefore, they could not file
any objections. They contended that the gold ornaments
which are in the locker are the Stridhana properties,
purchased by them and also received as gifts during
marriage. He further, contended that the appellant has been
convicted for committing the murder of his wife, which has
been affirmed by the Apex Court and therefore, in view of
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the appellant
is disqualified from inheriting the property of his wife. He
contended that the respondents had no opportunity to contest
the application filed before the trial Court and further, they
hail from the State of Uttar Pradesh and they were not aware
of the appeal proceedings and could not file separate
application for the custody of the locker key and the gold
ornaments.
7. The Learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the
application insofar as the locker key and the gold ornaments
are concerned, has observed that during the investigation of
the case, the accused gave a voluntary statement stating that
the gold ornaments belonged to his deceased-wife and further
the case papers reveal that both the accused and his
deceased-wife had sufficient income and therefore, the
accused has failed to place sufficient materials on record to
show his right to claim the gold ornaments in question. It is
further observed that the accused has murdered his wife and
even suffered sentence and therefore, he is not entitled to
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
claim the gold ornaments in question, as such, and since the
deceased and accused had no issues, the gold ornaments
belonging to the deceased should go to her parents.
Therefore, if the locker key is returned to the accused, it
would give scope for him to take away the gold ornaments.
8. In the case on hand, the factual position is that,
the locker key-MO.45 was seized by the Investigating Officer
at the instance of the accused, the locker key contains gold
articles and other valuables.
9. The appellant has contended that there is no rival
claimant. In the case of immovable properties, the person in
whose possession it is found, is presumed to be its owner
unless contrary is proved. In the instant case, respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The appellant's
claim over the property is disputed by respondent Nos.2
and 3. Under such circumstances, whenever right over any
property is disputed by other party, the person who claims
right over the property, which includes both movable and
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
immovable property, can also seek declaration under Section
34 of the Transfer of property Act.
10. Having perused the material on the record and
hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel, we are of
the view that both the parties should be given an opportunity
to make their claim before the trial Court once again by
placing all materials, as we have noticed that relevant aspects
are not considered by the trial Court while disposing of the
application, insofar as rejecting the claim of the appellant,
regarding return of the locker key and release of the gold
ornaments. The trial Court while partly allowing the
application, has rejected the prayer for return of locker key
marked as MO.45 for the time being. Hence, liberty is
reserved to both the parties to file fresh applications before
the trial Court.
11.
Impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed in
SC.No.1387/2010, by the Court of the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the application filed
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17686-DB
CRL.A No. 239 of 2025
HC-KAR
under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., insofar as return of gold
ornaments seized under mahazar marked at Ex.P33 and for
return of locker key-MO.45 etc. is set aside .
12. Both the parties are at liberty to file fresh
applications before the trial Court along with the materials
supporting their respective claims. If such applications are
filed, the learned Sessions Judge giving a fair hearing to both
the parties, and also taking into consideration the documents
which are already on record shall dispose of the application as
expeditiously as possible.
Appeal is disposed of , keeping open all the
contentions.
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
LDC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3