Gujarat High Court
Dineshsinh Parimalsinh Tomar vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/634/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 634 of 2024
==========================================================
DINESHSINH PARIMALSINH TOMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR L PATEL(11596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on
behalf of respondent - State.
2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking quashing and setting aside the
orders passed by the learned lower Courts and thereby, be pleased
order to release/handover the muddamal i.e. firearm (Gun
bearing No.13236-2000), which was seized in pursuance of the
FIR bearing C.R.No.11214068230165 of 2023 registered at
Kim Police Station, Surat, for the offence under the provisions of
the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
is retired CRPF person and was rendering his services as security.
Further, the gun was not used in any offence and he is having valid
license and he will assure and undertake that the same will not be
used in any offence in future.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/634/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
4. From the record, it appears that the firearm was sent to the
FSL for examination, and report is received on 07.10.2023.
Considering the report, it appears that the firearm is not used for
any offence or firing and even the petitioner is a retired CRPF
employee and he was rendering his service as a security. Further,
the license is still in operation. Therefore, the Petitioner has
approached the lower Courts for releasing his firearm, which were
not considered. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has
approached this Court.
5. The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court in regard to
the valuable articles held that no useful purpose would be served to
keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and
in such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as
contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., at the earliest.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent - State has opposed this petition and submits that the
powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order
release of the muddamal can be exercised at any time whenever
the Court deems it appropriate, still however it was urged that the
present petition may not be entertained.
7. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), which read as under:
"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of
Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises,
number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by
day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the
Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such
vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are
seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/634/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is
seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of
arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such
seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the
Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate
bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if
required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles."
8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the orders passed by
the learned lower Courts are hereby quashed and set aside. The
learned Trial Court / authority concerned is directed to release the
muddamal firearm of the petitioner being Gun bearing No.13236-
2000 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:
(i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount
equivalent to the price of the muddamal in question
stated in the FIR / panchnama.
(ii) shall file undertaking before the learned Trial Court
that he shall not transfer / change the identity, color etc.
of the firearm till final disposal of the trial.
(iii) shall produce the muddamal as and when directed by
the learned Trial Court.
(iv) in the event of any subsequent offence, the firearm shall
stand confiscated.
9. Before release of the muddamal, concerned police authority
shall take photographs / identity of the muddamal from all sides at
the cost of the petitioner and shall draw necessary panchanama to
that effect. Said panchanama and photographs shall be part of
charge sheet papers for the purpose of trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/634/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
10. Copy of this order be send to concerned authority, for
necessary entry in the Register and to take notice that this Court
has restrained transfer of muddamal till final disposal of the trial.
Such transfer shall be subject to any order that may be passed by
the learned Trial Court permitting transfer of muddamal.
11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
