The court determined that provisional orders not confirmed within the stipulated time cannot impose further conditions on release.

ORDER

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2025 The petitioner was the employee of a non-

banking financial institution named 'Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate' against which proceedings under the BUDS Act was initiated. As part of such proceedings, the vehicles belonging to the petitioner were also attached under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court, challenging the order directing to release petitioner's vehicles on furnishing bank security of Rs.24,50,000/-. Therein, a doubt had arisen as to whether the vehicles were seized/attached in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS or the BUDS Act . After getting clarification from the designated court, Annexure 9 order was passed directing the court below to reconsider petitioner’s application as one filed under the provisions of the BUDS Act . After such reconsideration, the court below has passed Annexure 10 order, releasing the vehicles on interim custody subject to certain conditions. This Crl.M.C. is filed aggrieved by the following conditions;

“(b)For getting the temporary custody of vehicles petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee or guarantee in the form of landed property equivalent to the value of those vehicles assessed by the joint RTO as stated above.

(c)In addition to the above, If the petitioner is furnishing landed property as guarantee, petitioner shall execute bond for the value of the vehicles ie., for Rs. 6,85,320/-with two solvent sureties each for like sum.

(d) If the petitioner is furnishing guarantee in the form of landed property the original title deed of the property shall be produced before the court for perusal.

(j)The vehicles, while in the temporary custody of the petitioner will be subject to the powers of Competent Authority that are available to it under the provisions of BUDS Act over the provisionally attached property and the possession.”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below committed an illegality in imposing onerous conditions after finding the provisional order of attachment to have lapsed for want of confirmation in the manner prescribed under the BUDS Act .

3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

4. By Annexure 10, a well reasoned order, the court below reached the correct conclusion that the order of attachment having not been confirmed in the manner prescribed, designated court is not empowered to pass orders with respect to the attached vehicles since the vehicles are in the possession of the Competent Authority under the BUDS Act . In spite of having reached such conclusion, the court below directed to release the vehicles in order to render justice on finding that the petitioner is left with no remedy.

5. There is no dispute to the fact that the provisional order of attachment was not confirmed within the stipulated time. This Court in Highrich Online Shoppe Private Limited v. Competent Authority (2024 KHC 1237) has held that the confirmation order cannot be passed beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. As such, the provisional order attaching the petitioner's vehicles is no longer in subsistence. Being so, it is unjust to impose conditions like b,c,d and j on the petitioner for releasing his vehicles. Therefore, in exercise of this Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS and in order to render justice, condition Nos.b, c, d and j in Annexure 10 order is deleted and the following condition incorporated;

“The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.6,85,320/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.”

The Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of.