Lack of invoices no ground to refuse supurdagi of recovered stolen ornaments: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a theft complainant cannot be denied release of her recovered gold and silver ornaments on supurdagi merely for want of purchase bills, observing that where the FIR itself describes the stolen articles, the complainant has identified them during investigation and no other person claims them, such refusal is unreasonable.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the prosecution’s own case was that the recovered articles were the very articles stolen from the petitioner’s house and recovered from the accused during investigation, and in such circumstances the absence of invoices — particularly for ornaments claimed to be ancestral — could not be the basis for keeping them in police custody. The Court held:

“The fact that the petitioner did not produce invoices for the stolen articles, especially when no one else is claiming them, cannot be a basis for refusing to hand over the articles to the petitioner.”

The petitioner, Seema Soni, had approached the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated Aug 13, 2025 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Alwar, which dismissed her revision and affirmed the order dated Mar 10, 2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar accepting her supurdagi application only to the extent of releasing the original Registration Certificate while refusing to release the gold-silver ornaments.

On the basis of the petitioner’s written complaint dated Dec 23, 2024 regarding theft of her ornaments, FIR No. 320/2024 was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Alwar. During investigation, police recovered the ornaments along with the Registration Certificate and seized them. The petitioner then moved the Judicial Magistrate seeking release of both on supurdagi, but the Magistrate partly allowed the application, directing only that the original R.C. be handed over. Her revision before the Revisional Court also came to be dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that she is the rightful owner of the seized ornaments, her ownership being evident from the photographs of the jewellery annexed with the petition, and that no purchase bills were available as the ornaments are ancestral in nature. It was argued that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the ornaments in police custody, and that the petitioner was ready to furnish an affidavit before the trial Magistrate. Relying on the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, counsel submitted that there is no restriction in giving the seized articles to the petitioner on supurdagi. The Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions.

Examining the record, the Court noted that the recovery of the articles was made during investigation of the FIR filed by the petitioner herself, that the FIR contains a clear description of the articles alleged to have been stolen, that the stolen articles were identified by the petitioner during investigation, and that no other person has claimed their ownership. It observed:

“In such circumstances, it is unreasonable that the trial Court and the revisional Court denied delivery of the recovered articles solely on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any proof of ownership or bills.”

The Court further drew guidance from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, wherein the Supreme Court observed that seized articles can be released on appropriate terms and conditions so as to prevent their decay while in custody.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the orders of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate to the extent of refusing to release the gold and silver ornaments, directing the trial Court to release the ornaments to the petitioner on supurdagi on the conditions that she furnish an undertaking/affidavit before the trial Court with regard to the identity and production of the ornaments, and that she undertake not to sell the ornaments or make or allow any changes in them so as to make them unidentifiable. The petition, along with the stay application and pending applications, stood disposed of.

Title: Seema Soni v State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2059/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:30620]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Amitesh Rana with Ms. Vijay Laxmi Jangid

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Manvendra Choudhary, PP