Chattisgarh High Court
Dharmendra Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 May, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CR.R. No. 184 of 2022
• Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Lalmani Singh Aged About 54
Years R/o Plot No. 803, Near Pahadi Talab, Sunder Nagar,
P.S.-D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. D.D. Nagar, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
----Non-applicant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For applicant : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Adv.
For respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Adv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
11-5-2022
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant
against order dated 24-1-2022 passed by the learned 6th Addl.
Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST No. 17/2020 (State of CG -v-
Dharmendra Singh and anr.) by which the application filed by the
applicant under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(in short 'Cr.P.C.') for interim custody of Pistol RP No. 130380,
has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2-10-2019 at about 11.45
pm, the applicant was going in his Breeza car bearing registration
No. CG 04 MS 5161 along with his son for refilling fuel and the
complainant was going along with Mahant Pathak @ Bulthu
Pathak in Bullet Motorcycle from opposite side. At about 11.45,
near old Tole barrier Sundar Nagar, Raipur, they cross each other.
There happened hot talks between both the parties as, it is
alleged, the applicant did not use dipper head light mode.
Thereafter, when they stopped their car at Pranjal Petrol Pump,
Mahant Pathak @ Bulthu Pathak and the complainant came there
and abused them. When son of the applicant objected, they
inflicted knife injury to his son. To save his son, the applicant fired
at them, one bullet hit Mahant Pathak @ Bulthu Pathak, as a
result of which, he died. Based on above facts, Crime No.
341/2019 was registered against the applicant and his son
Shivendra Singh and after investigation, charge sheet under
Section 302, 307, 34 of the IPC has been filed against the
applicant and his son Shivendra Singh. The applicant also lodged
counter FIR No. 340/2021 under Section 307/34 of the IPC
against Mahant Pathak @ Bulthu Pathak and complainant of this
case Sourabh Banjare. Charge sheet has been filed under Section
307, 34 of the IPC against Sourabh Banjare, as Mahant Pathak @
Bulthu Pathak has died in the incident. During investigation, Pistol
No. RP 130380 and its licence was seized from the applicant.
3. The application filed by the applicant under Section 451 of
the Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the pistol in question has been
dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur by the
impugned order. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant has used the pistol in defence of his son. Had he not
fired at the deceased, he would have killed his son. If the pistol is
not given to his custody, it will be deteriorated, he is registered
owner of the same, the investigating agency has already made
every investigation regarding the identity and ownership of the
pistol in question. The licence of the pistol has already expired on
31-12-2021, hence renewal of the same is required. It requires
regular maintenance. Hence, the pistol may be given to him in
interim custody. The applicant has no previous criminal
antecedent.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai -v- State of
Gujrat, [2002 (10) SCC 283].
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant submitting that the pistol in question has been used in a
murder and it can again be misused by the applicant. Therefore,
the Court below has rightly rejected the application vide impugned
order which does not call for any interference of this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record and the impugned order.
8. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra),
has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the articles
seized by the police. For ready reference paragraphs 7 of the said
judgment is reproduced below :-
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would
serve various purposes, namely:
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of
its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. court or the police would not be required to keep
the article in safe custody;
3. if the proper panchnama before handing over
possession of the article is prepared, that can be
used in evidence instead of its production before
the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence
could also be recorded describing the nature of the
property in detail; and
4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence
should be exercised promptly so that there may
not be further chance of tampering with the
articles."
9. In the instant case, the applicant is said to be registered
owner of the pistol in question. He is also licence holder of the
same. It also seems that final disposal of the case will not take
place in near future and keeping the pistol in question in idle
condition will deteriorate it, on the contrary, if the pistol is released
with certain conditions, it may be properly maintained.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24-1-2022 passed
by learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No. 17/2020
is set aside. The Revision petition is allowed and it is directed that
pistol in question be given in interim custody of the applicant on
the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall execute a bond in a sum of 1,00,000/-
(Rs. One Lakh) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty
thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned;
(ii) The applicant must satisfy the court that he is the registered
owner of the offending pistol in question;
(iii) The applicant shall not dispose of the pistol in question till
disposal of concerned sessions trial;
(iv) The applicant shall also file an undertaking before the trial
Court that the pistol shall not be used for commission of any
offence;
(v) Before giving custody of the offending pistol to the applicant,
panchnama in this regard be prepared, and 4 coloured
photographs be taken from different angles clearly indicating the
particulars mentioned in the pistol and be kept on file. The
expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the applicant;
(vi) The applicant shall produce pistol either before trial Court or
before such authorities as may be directed, on his own expenses,
as and when directed.
Sd/-
N.K. Chandravanshi
Judge
Pathak/-
