Amrit Gurjar S/O Shri Kishan Singh, B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Amrit Gurjar S/O Shri Kishan Singh, B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the Trial Court was directed to pass an appropriate order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. regarding release of the weapon at the conclusion of the trial; the stay application and all pending applications stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of his licensed 315 Bore Rifle (seized as the weapon of offence) calls for interference by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

The Special Judge committed no error in rejecting the Section 451 Cr.P.C. application, since the rifle is the weapon of offence used by the accused persons in the alleged incident and is required to be produced at the time of the evidence of the prosecution witness.

Key takeaways

While dismissing the petition, this Court directed that the Trial Court would pass an appropriate order under Section 452 Cr.P.C., at the conclusion of the trial, with regard to release of the weapon.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.), dismissed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 911/2019 by which Amrit Gurjar challenged the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli in criminal case No.28/2018 rejecting his application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of his licensed 315 Bore Rifle (Reg. No. Abob 13045, Boucher No. 1425), seized during investigation of FIR No.747/2017 of Police Station Hindaun, District Karauli for offences under Sections 307 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as printed: 3(1(S) and 3(2)(va)). Holding that the rifle is the weapon of offence, required to be produced at the time of the evidence of the prosecution witness, the Court found no error in the impugned order warranting interference. The petition was rejected; the stay application and pending applications were disposed of; the Trial Court was left to pass an appropriate order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. regarding release of the weapon at the conclusion of the trial.

[2026:RJ-JP:9852]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 911/2019

Amrit Gurjar S/o Shri Kishan Singh, B/c Gurjar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Natholi Ka Pura, P.s. Suroth, District Karauli Presently Residing At Agresain Vihar Colony, Hindaun, P.s. Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.) ( Licensee Of Rifle Bearing Its Reg. No. Abob 13045 Boucher No. 1425)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S.Dhakar, PP
	Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP and
	Ms. Manju Dave,PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

07/03/2026

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli in criminal case No.28/2018, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of his 315 Bore Rifle has been rejected.

As per the contents of the FIR, the petitioner is the licensee and he is in possession of the license to bear the aforesaid rifle, which has been seized by the Police during the course of investigation pertaining to the FIR No.747/2017, registered with Police Station Hindaun, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 307 IPC, 3(1(S) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of

[2026:RJ-JP:9852]

[CRLMP-911/2019]

(2 of 2)

Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the rifle in question is the weapon of offence, which has been used by the accused person to commit the alleged incident, hence, the weapon is required to be kept in proper custody during the course of investigation for the purpose of marking the same as an article.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned, as the rifle in question is a weapon of offence, which has been used by the accused persons for committing the alleged incident and the same is required to be produced at the time of evidence of the prosecution witness. This Court finds no error in the impugned order, which requires any interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands rejected. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 5. However, the Trial Court would pass appropriate order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. at the time of conclusion of the trial with regard to release of the aforesaid weapon.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

KuD/7