Recovered stolen ornaments may be released on supardagi absent purchase bills where ownership is undisputed.

The petitioner lodged FIR No. 320/2024 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Alwar, alleging theft of her gold and silver ornaments.

During investigation, the police recovered the ornaments and the petitioner’s Registration Certificate (R.C.), seized them, and the petitioner applied for their release on supurdगी.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Alwar, partly allowed the application by releasing only the original R.C. and refused release of the ornaments.

The revisional court affirmed that order on 13 August 2025.

The petitioner therefore invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the High Court, contending that the ornaments were ancestral, that their identity was established through the FIR and photographs, and that no other person claimed ownership.

Whether the recovered gold and silver ornaments could be released to the petitioner on supurdगी despite her inability to produce purchase bills or other documentary proof of ownership

Whether continued retention of the ornaments in police or court custody was necessary when the ornaments had been described in the FIR, identified by the petitioner, and no competing ownership claim existed

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principle governing interim custody of seized property under Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, namely that seized articles should ordinarily be released on appropriate terms and conditions where continued custody serves no useful purpose and may expose the property to deterioration or damage.

The Court further held that absence of purchase invoices is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to deny release where the articles correspond to the complainant’s description, have been identified by her, and no other person claims ownership.

The Court found that the recovery was made in the investigation of the FIR lodged by the petitioner; the FIR contained a clear description of the stolen ornaments, the petitioner identified the recovered articles, and the prosecution itself treated them as the ornaments stolen from her house.

Since no competing claimant asserted ownership, the absence of bills—particularly when the petitioner stated that the ornaments were ancestral—could not reasonably justify continued retention or refusal of supurdगी.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court concluded that the ornaments could be safely released subject to safeguards ensuring their identity and future production before the trial court.

The trial court was directed to release the ornaments to the petitioner on supurdगी upon her furnishing an undertaking or affidavit regarding their identity and production, and undertaking not to sell them or alter, or permit alteration of, the ornaments so as to make them unidentifiable.