Sitting in a packed courtroom at the Indore Bench on Tuesday, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar delivered a sharp reminder to investigative agencies: seized valuables cannot lie in police malkhana forever. The High Court set aside a trial court’s refusal to return gold and silver jewellery seized from accused Sonu’s home, noting that the police had failed to show that the articles belonged to anyone else.
Background
The matter arose from a raid conducted by the Boda Police, Rajgarh, in connection with a Punjab FIR involving serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the raid, officers recovered assorted gold and silver ornaments from Sonu’s residence but found no purchase documents at the spot. This led them to suspect that the valuables were stolen, and they were seized under Section 35 of the BNSS.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies When Appeal Time Starts in Environmental Clearance Cases, Dismisses Talli Gram
In the days that followed, the police registered additional local offences and even arrested several family members. The accused tried to explain that the jewellery was lawfully theirs, and supportive bills were later verified by jewellers-though the investigation officer remained sceptical because regular bill books or carbon copies were unavailable.
The trial court rejected Sonu’s request to take the jewellery on Supurdagi (interim custody), prompting the present petition under Section 528 BNSS.
Court’s Observations
As the hearing began, the judge questioned the State on a key aspect: if the jewellery was truly stolen, who was the complainant?
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: Assignment of Specific Performance Decrees Need No Registration, Ending
When the investigating officer failed to identify any such person, the Court appeared visibly unimpressed. The bench observed, “If no rightful owner has ever come forward, how long can the State keep these articles locked up?”
Justice Kalgaonkar noted that even the police’s verification report did not disprove ownership. The judge remarked that suspicion alone could not override basic principles of property rights. In a slightly stern tone, he added that the trial court had “ignored an important aspect”-that no one had claimed the ornaments as stolen.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, which discourages storing valuable items in police custody for years. “It serves no purpose to let jewellery gather dust when there is no complainant and no ongoing identification dispute,” the bench observed.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses State’s Appeal After Acquittal in POCSO Case, Says DNA Alone Cannot Establish Rape Without Clear Victim Testimony
Decision
Concluding that the trial judge committed “manifest impropriety,” the High Court set aside the order and directed that all seized gold and silver items be released to Sonu, subject to appropriate Supurdagi and surety bonds ensuring their production during trial if required.
The petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.
Case Title: Sonu vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: MCRC No. 48689 of 2025
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
Date of Order: 18 November 2025
