THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) with a prayer for release of office premises i.e., Plot No.107, Blue Chip Arcade, Opp:Tata Motors Showroom, Himayathnagar, which is illegally seized by the police (herein after ‘office premises’) of the petitioner/accused No.5.

2. Heard Mr.Jella Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner- accused No.5, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

3. The petitioner/accused No.5 is arrayed as accused No.5 in F.I.R.No.773 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 308(5), 79, 351 (2), 61(2) of BNS and 66 (C) and 66 D of Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. The petitioner is lease holder of the office premises and the same has been seized by the investigating agency in Cr.No.773 of 2024. The solitary ground raised by the petitioner is seizure of the premises by the police is illegal and it shall be released. Further submits that since the police has not shown the seizure of property in Form No.60 before the Magistrate concerned, the petitioner could not approach the trial Court for its release and there is no other remedy for the petitioner except this petition under Section 528 of BNSS. He further cited the judgment in Nevada Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharastra, (2019) 20 SCC 119 and pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, only movable properties can be seized and does not cover immovable properties. Therefore, asserted for release of the property.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no specific instructions have been received, however, the petitioner ought to have approached concerned Magistrate in case of seizure of any property including immovable property. If the seizure of property has not been reflected in the record, the Magistrate concerned may call for remarks of the investigating agency and pass an appropriate order. Without availing such remedy, asking this Court for release of property would not be proper, especially when the proceedings of the investigation are underway.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the trial Court/Magistrate concerned questioning the alleged seizure of the office/property. Even, as per the pleadings, the office has been seized

during investigation as crime evidence. Whether it has been reported or not to the Magistrate concerned is unclear. Form No.60 of Cr.P.C, deals with the list of property sent to the Magistrate. The seizure of office premises being immovable property reflection of seizure in that form may not be plausible. Further basing on this fact deducing that the police has not informed about the seizure of the office premises to the concerned Magistrate and it amount to illegal seizure improper. As per the procedure, once the crime has been registered, the investigating agency is bound to report the Magistrate concerned all the developments in the investigation including seizure of property at the earliest, as investigating proceedings would be within the supervisory domain of the Magistracy. That being of the position and even as per the petitioner, office has been seized by the police as part of material evidence in the case, drawing any conclusion as to impropriety of the seizure of any property without considering the requirement of the property in securing evidence and what would be the implication if the property seized is released, would not be justified. Counting these circumstances, this Court finds no tenable ground to interfere with the seizure without deliberating the above aspects. For that reason granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking release of the office/seized property before the Magistrate concerned is found appropriate. Accordingly, ordered. If such application is filed, the learned Mag