Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2025

                                                             1                                 CRA-9200-2024
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                     CRA No. 9200 of 2024
                                          (RAMAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                           Dated : 22-05-2025
                                 Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Mr. A.P.S. Tomar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No. 10091 of 2025, an application filed by the appellant No. 2 seeking custody of his gun which was seized in ST No. 258 of 2019 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri as per order of trial Court

at para 44 of judgment dated 16.07.2024.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant No.2 is the license holder and registered owner of the said gun and he will not misuse the same. Learned counsel for the appellant further assured that whenever it would be required by the competent Court the same will be produced before the Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the application.

Counsel for the State though opposed the prayer but fairly submits that copy of renewal of licence has been filed and since hearing of the appeal would take time, therefore, licenced rifle may be given to the appellant No.

2-Devendra @ Sunder on certain condition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, directions of the trial Court at para 44 of the judgment and hearing of the appeal would take time, I.A. No. 10091 of 2025 is allowed and the aforesaid gun is ordered to be released on furnishing Supurdginama of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on following conditions:-

2 CRA-9200-2024

(ii) Whenever it would be required by the competent Court the same will be produced on appellant's No.2 own expenses at the place as would be directed in this regard; If the appellant No.2 fails to produce the same, the Court would be at liberty to forfeit the bond amount and take appropriate action against him.

(iii) The appellant No. 2 shall not use the gun for any illegal purpose and he will not change any part of the gun.

(iv) The appellant No. 2 shall not dispose of the gun without prior sanction of the Court concerned;

(vi) If any of the condition is found violated, the Court would be at liberty to recall the order of Supurdginama.

With the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) V. JUDGE

(LJ*)