THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DECLARE THAT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN SEIZING THE GOLD ARTICLES PLEDGED BY ITS CUSTOMERS OF THE PETITIONER BY THREATENING TO ARREST IS ARBITRARY AND IS IN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLES 19(1)(G) AND 21 AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ART 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950. B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE SEIZED GOLD ARTICLES VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 21.02.2026 TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"A. Declare that the interference by the Respondents in seizing the gold articles pledged by its customers of the petitioner by threatening to arrest is arbitrary and is in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 and the constitutional rights guaranteed under art 300A of the Constitution of India 1950.

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction be issued to the 2nd Respondent to restore the seized gold articles vide Annexure-F dated 21.02.2026 to the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.

C. And grant such other relief or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Petitioner a Non-Banking Financial Company registered with Reserve Bank of India is asserting that a borrower had pledged certain gold articles on 31.12.2025 and obtained loan from the petitioner. On a complaint lodged on 5.4.2019 by one Smt. Leena, alleging theft of 248 grams of gold articles, a crime is registered by respondent No.2 in Cr.No.0680/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and respondent No.2 under the garb of investigation has issued a notice under Section 94(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS, 2023") and has seized the entire gold articles pledged in the name of accused Muniraju.

3. Petitioner's counsel questioning the action of the Investigating Officer in seizing the gold articles, has placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench in an identical case and has contended that the physical removal of the properties from the custody of the petitioner who is a non-banking financial company is not required for collecting evidence. He further submits that petitioner is advancing loans to the customers by accepting the gold as security and therefore, contends that the Investigating Officer cannot indiscriminately seize the gold articles pledged by borrowers/ customers. Emphasis is laid on the data that 90% of the cases where properties were seized have resulted into acquittal and the properties were never returned to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:

(a) Crl.A.No.1026/2024 [Muthoot Fincorp Limited .vs. The Station House Officer and others;

(b) Spl.Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14956/2025 [Manappuram Asset Finance Limited .vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others];

(c) W.P.No.21838/2025(GM-POLICE) [Muthoot Finance Limited .vs. The State of Karnataka and Another];

(d) Crl.P.No.10023/2025 [Keerthana Finserv Private Limited .vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh];

(e) W.P.No.25540/2023 [Mannappuram Asset Finance Limited .vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh];

(f) W.P.No.25563/2024(GM-POLICE) [Muthoot Finance Limited .vs. The State of Karnataka];

(g) W.A.No.1653/2024(GM-POLICE) [Smt. Gouramma H .vs. Muthoot Finance Limited and Others];

(h) W.P.No.27479/2025(GM-Police) [Manapuram Finance Limited .vs. State of Karnataka and others];

(i) 2025 SCC Online Ker 3546[Headstar Global Pvt. Limited .vs. State of Kerala];

(j) (2019) 20 SCC 119 [Nev