Mukesh Jain Gets Relief as Karnataka High Court Enforces Forty-Five-Day BNSS Timeline for Seized Property

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the time limits built into Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 are not optional. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that after property is produced before a criminal court, the Magistrate must prepare its statement within 14 days and pass a disposal order within a further 30 days—making 45 days from seizure the outer limit.

Acting on a writ petition filed by Mukesh Jain, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to dispose of Jain's pending application for interim custody of the seized property within one week.

A ₹4.83-Crore Telegram Trail

The dispute traces to a cyber fraud complaint registered on 8 July 2025 by Manish Kumar. His brother, Rajath Jain, a stock market trader, had been lured through a Telegram group called "Unlisted Shares", allegedly run by Akashdeep Singh and his team. The group projected success stories and promised substantial returns. Rajath was told to pay ₹4.5 crore for 3,000 unlisted shares. He ended up transferring ₹4.83 crore to various bank accounts suggested by the group, including one belonging to M/s Poonam Steel; the group was deleted once the money came in. In a further statement, Rajath also alleged that, on Akashdeep Singh's advice, some amount was transferred to Mukesh Jain's account.

Crime No.250 of 2025 was registered under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. During the probe, a search warrant under Section 96 BNSS was issued on 13 August 2025 and executed on 25 August 2025, leading to the seizure of cash, gold ornaments, silver items, cheque books, bank passbooks, gold photo frames, watches and mobile phones from Jain's residence.

Jain's defence was that none of the bank accounts mentioned in the complaint belonged to him.

Living Under the Shadow of Seizure

On 3 September 2025, Jain filed IA No.III under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS before the Magistrate, seeking interim custody and disposal of the seized articles. The application was heard; the Magistrate reserved orders. But no order followed. By 16 February 2026, when Jain approached the High Court, the application had been pending for more than five months.

His counsel argued that the continued detention was causing grave prejudice because some seized articles were essential to day-to-day life. The petitioner is not an accused, he stressed; denying him interim custody amounts to unjust deprivation. He also pointed to the newly introduced statutory timelines under BNSS and to the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , which had urged prompt disposal of seized property.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor resisted the prayer, contending that the High Court could not put pressure on the Magistrate, as disposal in accordance with law takes time. She left the matter to the Court's discretion.

A Statutory Clock the Magistrate Ignored

The High Court first compared Section 497 BNSS with the old Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both provisions deal with custody and disposal of property pending trial. But BNSS has expanded the Magistrate's power to the investigation stage and, for the first time, introduced a rigid timeline.

Section 497(2) requires the statement of property to be prepared within 14 days of production before the Court. Section 497(5) then requires an order for disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within 30 days after the statement and photographs or videographs are ready. This, the Court said, works out to 45 days from seizure.

Applying that clock to the facts, the High Court noted:

  • 25 August 2025 — search and seizure
  • 26 August 2025 — seizure report before the Magistrate
  • 3 September 2025 — IA No.III filed by Jain
  • 9 September 2025 — deadline for the property statement under Section 497(2)
  • 18 September 2025 — police filed objections
  • 9 October 2025 — deadline for the disposal order under Section 497(5)
  • 16 February 2026 — writ petition filed

"Therefore, in all, the concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days from the date of the seizure," Justice Nagaprasanna held. The Magistrate had missed both statutory deadlines by months.

What the Court Said

The High Court drew support from the Allahabad High Court's decision in Kanak Cattle Feeds Private Limited v. State of U.P. and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court's judgment in R. Saiju v. The Superintendent of Police, Theni . Both decisions recognised that the new BNSS provisions impose a strict, time-bound disposal process.

The Court also invoked the Supreme Court's observations in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , where it was held that powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised "expeditiously and judiciously" and that seized articles should not be kept in police custody for more than fifteen days to one month.

The central finding was blunt:

"A perusal at the link in the chain of dates would indicate that, the concerned Court has rendered the mandate of the statute nugatory by not adhering to the timeline so fixed under the statute."

And again:

"The concerned Court or the Courts which consider applications under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS must, therefore, strictly adhere to the mandate of the statute ."

One Week to Decide

Allowing the petition, the High Court issued a writ of mandamus to the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, directing disposal of IA No.III dated 3 September 2025 within one week from receipt of the order. The Magistrate was told to keep in mind the observations made in the judgment.

The ruling reinforces that the BNSS's procedural reforms are enforceable. For litigants, it means a Magistrate's inaction on seized property can be remedied by the High Court; for Magistrates, it is a warning that the 45-day statutory timeline is a binding obligation, not a guideline.

Case: Mukesh Jain v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No.5267 of 2026 (GM - RES), Karnataka High Court.