Licensed Rifle Cannot Remain in Police Custody Indefinitely After Chargesheet: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release to Retired Army Man
Rajasthan High Court Orders Release of Retired Soldier’s Licensed Rifle, Says Trial Pendency Alone Cannot Justify Continued Seizure
Facts
Jaipal Singh, a retired Army personnel, held a valid arms licence for a 12-bore rifle bearing No. 28840-10. The licence had been issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch, on 26 June 2023 and was valid until 26 June 2026.
The rifle was seized in connection with FIR No. 70/2024 registered at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner disputed the allegations and maintained that the rifle had not been used in any criminal activity.
After completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner applied under Section 497 read with Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim release of the rifle. He stated that its physical production was necessary for renewal of the arms licence.
On 11 May 2026, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, rejected the application on the ground that the rifle had allegedly been used in the offence and would be required as case property during trial. The petitioner challenged this order through a criminal revision petition under Section 438 BNSS.
Issues
- Whether a licensed firearm seized as muddamal could be retained in the police malkhana indefinitely merely because it had allegedly been used in the offence.
- Whether the evidentiary requirement of producing the firearm during trial could be protected through photographs, a detailed panchnama, identification particulars and an undertaking to produce it whenever directed.
- Whether the petitioner’s need to renew his arms licence and use the firearm in connection with his employment justified its interim release.
- Whether the possibility of the petitioner committing another offence constituted a sufficient ground to refuse release of the firearm.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that he was the lawful owner and licensed holder of the rifle and that it had not been used in any criminal activity.
He argued that the investigation had already been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. Consequently, the rifle was no longer required for investigative purposes.
The arms licence was due to expire on 26 June 2026. Since renewal required physical production of the firearm before the licensing authority, continued seizure would prevent him from seeking timely renewal and might compel him to undergo the entire licensing process afresh.
The petitioner also contended that the rifle was not being properly maintained in police custody and could deteriorate or become unusable during the prolonged period required for completion of the trial.
It was further submitted that he had no criminal antecedents apart from the case in question. Being a retired serviceman presently engaged as a security guard at a bank or solar power project, the firearm was connected to his vocation and livelihood.
Reliance was placed on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Dineshsinh Parimalsinh Tomar v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application No. 634 of 2024.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the release of the rifle on the ground that it had allegedly been used in the commission of the offence.
It contended that the firearm constituted muddamal and would be required during the recording of evidence at trial. According to the State, the Additional Sessions Judge had correctly refused to release it.
The State also expressed an apprehension that releasing the firearm could lead to repetition of the alleged offence.
Analysis of the Law
Section 497 BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers the criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial.
The object of the provision is not to permit valuable property to remain indefinitely in police custody. The court must balance the evidentiary requirements of the trial against the owner’s right to preservation and use of the property.
Where the investigation is complete and the property can be accurately documented through photographs, panchnama and identification particulars, its continued physical retention may not be necessary. The court may release the property subject to conditions requiring the owner to preserve its identity and produce it whenever directed.
In the present case, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed. Therefore, the firearm was not required for any further investigative exercise. Its evidentiary value could be preserved through detailed documentation and an undertaking for its production during trial.
Precedent Analysis
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290
The Rajasthan High Court principally relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai. The Supreme Court held that powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.
The precedent recognises that prompt release of property serves several purposes:
- the owner does not suffer because the article remains unused or deteriorates;
- the police and courts are relieved from the burden of maintaining the property;
- a proper panchnama and detailed description may be used as evidence instead of requiring physical production of the article on every occasion; and
- prompt documentation reduces the possibility of tampering.
Applying these principles, the High Court held that the evidentiary purpose of retaining the rifle could be sufficiently protected by photographs, identification records and a panchnama.
Dineshsinh Parimalsinh Tomar v. State of Gujarat
The petitioner also relied upon the Gujarat High Court’s judgment concerning release of muddamal. Although the Rajasthan High Court recorded this reliance, its operative reasoning was primarily founded upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the following facts were undisputed:
- the petitioner was a retired serviceman;
- the rifle was licensed in his name;
- the investigation had been completed;
- the charge-sheet had already been filed; and
- no other criminal antecedents were reported against him.
The State’s apprehension that the petitioner might repeat the offence was characterised as speculative and unsupported by any material. The existence of a single FIR could not, by itself, justify an assumption that the petitioner would misuse the firearm again.
The Court rejected the argument that the rifle must remain in the malkhana merely because it might be required during trial. The firearm could be produced whenever directed, while appropriate safeguards could protect the fairness of the proceedings.
It also accepted that prolonged retention without proper maintenance could adversely affect the rifle’s condition and operational efficiency. Valuable property should ordinarily not remain in police custody indefinitely where its evidentiary identity can be preserved through proper documentation.
The impending expiry of the arms licence was treated as a significant circumstance. Refusal to release the rifle could deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to renew the licence and cause undue hardship.
The Court further considered that the rifle was connected to the petitioner’s work as a security guard and was therefore not merely a personal or decorative possession. Continued deprivation could affect his livelihood.
Accordingly, the trial court’s refusal to release the firearm was held to be unjustified.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the order dated 11 May 2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer.
The trial court was directed to release the 12-bore rifle bearing No. 28840-10 subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner must furnish solvent surety equivalent to the value of the rifle stated in the FIR or panchnama.
- He must undertake not to transfer the rifle or alter its identity, colour or other identifying features until conclusion of the trial.
- He must produce the rifle whenever directed by the trial court.
- In the event of any subsequent offence, the firearm would be liable to confiscation.
- Before release, the trial court must ensure preparation of a detailed panchnama, photographs from all sides and complete identification particulars at the petitioner’s cost.
The ruling affirms that licensed property should not remain indefinitely in police custody merely because a criminal trial is pending, particularly where investigation is complete and evidentiary requirements can be protected through documentation and appropriate conditions.
Case: Jaipal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 819 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:26900
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeet Purohit, Vacation Judge
Date: 3 June 2026
Result: Criminal revision petition allowed; the order refusing release of the licensed 12-bore rifle was set aside, and the rifle was directed to be released subject to safeguards and conditions.
