Soleman Ansary @ Ansari Vs State of Assam (Gauhati High Court)
Summary: The Gauhati High Court, in Soleman Ansary @ Ansari Vs The State of Assam, directed the release of seized cash amounting to Rs. 19,99,500/- to the petitioner upon execution of an indemnity bond. The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, refusing custody of the seized currency. The money had been recovered on 15.12.2022 during a police checking operation following information that cash allegedly connected with illegal cattle smuggling was being transported for transfer to Bangladesh. Four persons were arrested, and the seized amount was subsequently deposited in the Dhubri Treasury. However, following investigation, the police submitted a final report on 30.01.2024 citing insufficient evidence and requesting discharge of the petitioner.
The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner’s application for return of the money primarily on the grounds of his income tax records. The court observed that the petitioner had not filed income tax returns from financial year 2022-2023, that his bank accounts reflected only Rs. 6,647/- for assessment year 2022-2023, and that his possession of approximately Rs. 19 lakh in cash was suspicious. The Magistrate also referred to a supposed restriction under the Income Tax Act permitting only Rs. 2 lakh to be carried in cash. Before the High Court, the petitioner’s senior counsel relied upon an Investigating Officer’s report dated 18.05.2026, which recorded that Rs. 4,90,000/- had been received from the petitioner’s father following the sale of land, while the balance represented proceeds from his grocery business having a GST registration number. The report expressly confirmed that the entire seized amount belonged to the petitioner and that no other person had claimed ownership.
Justice Shamima Jahan relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, which establishes that valuable articles and currency notes seized in criminal proceedings should not remain in police custody for years and should be returned to their owner at the earliest, subject to appropriate safeguards. The Court observed that seized articles should ordinarily be handed over to their owner or the person from whose possession they were recovered, with procedures such as preparation of a detailed panchnama and execution of an indemnity bond. Applying that principle to the investigation report confirming the petitioner’s ownership, the High Court directed the concerned police officer to hand over the seized Rs. 19,99,500/- after obtaining an indemnity bond, ensuring that the petitioner would indemnify against any subsequent claim to the money. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court) – (2002) 10 SCC 283. Relied Upon. The Supreme Court held that seized valuable articles and currency notes should not remain in police custody for years and should be returned to the owner expeditiously after completing appropriate safeguards, including panchnama and indemnity bond procedures. The Gauhati High Court applied this principle while directing the release of Rs. 19,99,500/- to the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Doley, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Additional CJM, Dhubri by which the petitioner’s application for custody of seized amount of Rs. 19,99,500/- in connection with Gauripur PS Case No. 447/2022 was rejected. The case of the petitioner is that on 15.12.2022, an FIR was lodged by the police personnel of Gauripur Police Station stating inter alia that on a secret information regarding a vehicle carrying huge cash amount being received through illegal cattle smuggling would be transferred to Bangladesh by the accused person, a naka checking was conducted and the vehicle was intercepted and four persons were arrested and from their possession a cash amount of Rs. 19,99,500/- was seized.
3. Upon receipt of the FIR, the police conducted the investigation and submitted a final report on 30.01.2024, wherein it was stipulated that a thorough investigation was conducted and due to lack of sufficient evidence, the request was made to the Court for discharge of the petitioner from the said case. It was also stipulated therein that the seized amount of Rs. 19,99,500/- has been deposited in Dhubri Treasury. Subsequent to the submission of the final report, the petitioner had filed an application for custody of the cash amount which was seized by the police on 15.12.2022 and the Court by order dated 29.08.2024 had rejected the said application. The Court had rejected the same on the ground that from the records it is seen that the petitioner had not file income tax returns from the financial year 2022-2023 which shows that he has concealed the transactions before the income tax authority.
4. It is also held that as per the income tax return for the assessment year 2022-2023, a total cash of Rs. 6647/- was seen lying in the two bank account of the petitioner and it was found to be very surprising as to the fact that after few months, the petitioner will carry such huge amounts of Rs. 19 lakhs. It was also held that as per Income Tax Act, only Rs. 2 lakhs can be carried in cash and as such, the learned Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had submitted a report of the Investigating Officer submitted on 18.05.2026 wherein it was stated that an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- was received by the petitioner from his father with regard to sale of land and the rest of the money was acquired by him with regard to his business of grocery shop which has the concerned GST Number. It is also stipulated in the report that the entire amount of Rs. 19,99,500/- belongs to the accused person i.e. the petitioner. It is also stipulated for no other person had claimed the ownership of the said money.
6. It is no longer res integra that articles seized in connection with criminal case should be given to the owner or to the person from whom, it is seized at the earliest by the Magistrate. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, Reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 that the valuable articles as well as currency notes should not be kept in the police custody for years and should be given to the owner as early as possible. However, it is stated that before handing over the articles detailed panchnama of such articles along with an indemnity bond and other procedures to be followed. It is, therefore, directed that the concerned police officer should hand over the currency notes to the petitioner by collecting the indemnity bond so that if there is any claim to the said money later, the petitioner would indemnify it.
7. With these observations, petition is disposed of.
