Interim custody of seized property under S. 503 BNSS should be granted expeditiously when there is no rival claim, using bonds and photographic records to secure evidentiary value rather than keeping property in custody indefinitely under onerous conditions of non-alienation.

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.RP 273/2025 DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.14,90,731/- INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Smt. A. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question two orders, one of the learned Magistrate and one of the Revisional Court, seeking release of an amount seized by the police during investigation quantified at Rs.14,90,731/-. Both the Courts have concurrently denied the relief to the petitioner by rejecting the applications filed under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS. It is an admitted fact that the amount belongs to the petitioner, as it was seized from the hands of the accused.

3. In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.4606/2026 dated 03.03.2026, has held as follows:

"3. The story would commence from the journey of the petitioner and his wife in a Car, which undertook from Bangalore to Bellary to register a land and to finalise the marriage arrangements of their daughter. They stopped at Udupi Garden Hotel, at Challakere, finished their lunch and when they come back to the Car, neither the Car, nor the cash that was in the Car found and the driver was also found absconding. Immediately a complaint comes to be registered in Crime No.396/2025. The very next two days, i.e., on 26.08.2025 and 27.08.2025, the police trace out the driver, seized the cash and registered the recovered cash in P.F.Nos.238 and 240 of 2025. Seizure of the cash is reported to the learned Magistrate on 27.08.2025.

4. The petitioner then files an application under Section 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of the seized cash. On 21.10.2025, the accused - driver is said to have rendered a voluntary statement admitting that the seized cash belongs to the petitioner. The application is objected to by the respondent - police and charge sheet is filed on the basis of the said statement. Though there is no rival claimant before the concerned Court for the cash in P.F.Nos.238 and 240 of 2025, the petitioner's application filed under Section 503 of the BNSS comes to be rejected by the concerned Court, in terms of the order dated 17.10.2025. The petitioner then challenges the said order by filing criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.108/2025, seeking interim custody of cash by obliterating the order of the learned Magistrate, which also comes to be rejected in terms of the order dated 15.12.2025. It is these two orders that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in the memorandum of petition as well as before the concerned Court has clearly indicated as to how he secured the said cash and for what purpose they were travelling with that said cash. He would submit that accused himself appeared before the concerned Court and admits that the cash belongs to the petitioner and he was the one who had stolen it. Despite there being no rival claim, the concerned court has not released the cash in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would however, submit that the cash in the event is required adequate security need be furnished by the petitioner, but, would admit the fact that there is no rival claimant to the said cash.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made b