Allahabad HC Sets Aside Varanasi Court Order Refusing Release of Gold Jewellery Seized from NDPS Accused
The High Court found the trial court ignored ownership documents and oral suspicion alone cannot deny an accused the return of personal search items.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside, in part, an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi, which had refused to release gold jewellery and a small sum of cash recovered from the personal search of an accused facing trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, sitting singly, held that the trial court failed to consider documents indicating that the jewellery belonged to the applicant's wife, and that a mere oral objection by an NCB Sub-Inspector — suggesting the items were purchased from the proceeds of narcotics trade — was insufficient to withhold property from its apparent owner. The High Court directed a fresh application before the trial court, to be decided within one month.
The Seizure and the Trial Court's Refusal
Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari was arrested on 4 August 2023. At the time of arrest, a personal search was conducted and ten items were recovered from his possession. Among these were one gold chain with pendant, three gold rings, one gold bracelet, and ₹850 in cash. A personal search memo (jamaatalashi fard) was prepared on the same date.
The case arose from Crime No. 17 of 2023, registered under Sections 8, 22, 25, 29, and 30 of the NDPS Act at Police Station NCB, Lucknow Zone, District Varanasi. The matter was committed to the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge as Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2024.
On 23 May 2025, the applicant filed an application before the trial court seeking release of the personal search items. He contended that no other person had laid any claim to these articles and that the items were not case property connected to the offence itself. During the pendency of that application, an estimate was also placed on record showing that the gold articles had been purchased by his wife.
On 3 July 2025, a Sub-Inspector of the NCB filed an objection asserting that the items could have been purchased from the illegal proceeds of narcotics trade. The Additional District and Sessions Judge accepted this objection and rejected the release application by order dated 3 July 2025, to the extent it pertained to the gold jewellery and ₹850.
The applicant approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging that specific portion of the impugned order.
The Legal Contest Before the High Court
Senior counsel for the applicant, Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, argued that the trial court had not examined the ownership documents at all when passing the impugned order. The estimate placed on record during the earlier proceedings indicated clearly that the gold items were purchased by the applicant's wife, and no competing claimant had come forward. The trial court, it was submitted, had also ignored the directions of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported at ACC 2003 Volume 46 Page 223, which mandated prompt and prudent disposal of seized property and held that retaining such items in a malkhana for years serves neither public interest nor the interest of justice.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate Ashish Pandey, supported the impugned order. The argument was that the recovered items and the cash could form part of the illegal proceeds of narcotics trade, and the trial court's refusal to release was therefore justified.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary examined the record and identified two specific failures in the impugned order.
First, the trial court had not considered the ownership documents placed on record — specifically the estimate indicating that the gold jewellery was purchased by the applicant's wife. The court was required to assess the wife's claim of ownership, and that exercise had simply not been done.
Second, the trial court ignored that no other person had staked any claim to the items at any point. The court characterised this as a further aspect that was overlooked when passing the impugned order.
On the substantive question, the High Court found that no direct evidence had been placed on record at this stage to show that the specific jewellery was the subject matter of any offence, or that its continued retention in the malkhana would have any positive bearing on the trial. The NCB's objection was purely oral suspicion; it did not amount to the kind of material that could justify withholding personal property from its apparent owner.
The court applied the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalalal Desai, noting that the Supreme Court in that case had clearly laid down that courts must not allow seized property to remain in a police station or malkhana for years unnecessarily, and that such items must be returned to their true owner against proper photographs, a panchnama, and an appropriate bond or surety. The court held that the trial court's failure to follow this direction and to evaluate the ownership documents made the impugned order unsustainable.
The court further observed that depriving a person of property recovered from a personal search, solely on the basis of the investigating agency's oral apprehension, was not justified in law.
Order
The application was allowed. The order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi dated 3 July 2025 was set aside to the extent it refused release of the personal search items, namely one gold chain with pendant, three gold rings, one gold bracelet, and ₹850 in cash.
The applicant was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court, within one month from the date of this judgment, along with relevant documents establishing ownership of the recovered articles.
If such an application is filed within the stipulated period, the trial court was directed to dispose of it within one month of receipt, in accordance with the law laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalalal Desai.
The application was finally disposed of on 2 September 2025.