MUKESH JAIN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

1
R
Reserved on : 05.03.2026
Pronounced on : 07.07.2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 07 DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.5267 OF 2026 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

MUKESH JAIN
C/O KRISHNALAL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO.105,
MADHUBAN COMPLEX JC NAGAR
HUBLI, DHARWAD
KARNATAKA – 580 020.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHAJAN B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SOUTH EAST CEN CRIME, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.B.PUSHPALATHA, ADDL.SPP)
















Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI B
K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF
IA.NO.III DATED 03.09.2025, FILED UNDER SECTIONS 497 AND
503 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
(ANNEXURE-B) BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING THE RELEASE OF THE
SEIZED PROPERTY WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE WEEK FROM THE
DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE

COURT.


THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayer:


“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the XLVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to consider and
dispose of I.A.No.III dated 03-09-2025, filed under
Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagaika Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure-B) by the petitioner seeking the
release of the seized property within a period of one weeks
from the date of receipt of the order passed by this
Hon’ble Court.

3
ii Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and
equity.”


2. Heard Sri Mahajan B.K., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt B. Pushpalatha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.


3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

3.1. One Manish Kumar registered a complaint before the CEN
Crime Police Station/Jurisdictional Cyber Crime Police for certain
transactions that have taken place between 01-03-2025 and
30-04-2025, on the score that his brother one Rajath Jain, who was
engaged in the activity of stock market trading since five years, was
defraud of an amount of about ₹4.83 crores, by inducement to
invest into unlisted shares. In the course of his trading activities,
Rajath Jain came across a Telegram Group titled ‘Unlisted Shares’
which were allegedly owned and operated by one Akashdeep Singh
and his team. He is said to have been induced into investing money
in certain unlisted shares through the Telegram Group on the
assurance that he would get substantial returns. The inducement is

4
alleged to have happened by circulating success stories of other
investors. Rajath Jain was then informed that he needs to pay an
amount of ₹4.5 crores for 3000 shares and after such payment, the
shares would be transferred in his favour.

3.2. Acting on the said assurance and due to such
inducement, an amount of ₹4.83 crores was transferred to various
bank accounts indicated in the said Telegram Group. After receipt
of the said transfer, the group itself was deleted. Thereafter, Manish
Kumar lodges a complaint on 08-07-2025. Based upon the
complaint, a crime in Crime No.250 of 2025 comes to be registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of
the BNS and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, initially against unknown persons. On 07-08-2025,
further statement of Rajath Jain was recorded, wherein the
petitioner alongwith several other persons come to be named. In
the said statement it is alleged that, Rajath Jain transferred the
amounts to one M/s Poonam Steel and other bank accounts and on
the advice of Akash Deep Singh, certain amount was transferred to
the account of the petitioner as well. The defence of the petitioner

5
is that none of the bank accounts mentioned in the complaint
belong to him.

3.3. On 13-08-2025, a search warrant comes to be issued
under Section 96 of the BNSS and the petitioner’s residence and
other places were searched concerning the crime so registered.
Upon completion of the search and seizure, the Police reported
before the concerned Court particulars of the seizures done
pursuant to the search. The seized items included cash, gold
ornaments, silver items, cheque books and bank passbooks, gold
photo frames, watches and mobile phones. Aggrieved by the
seizure of the aforesaid articles from the house of the petitioner, an
application in I.A.No.III under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, is
filed before the concerned Court by the petitioner, seeking interim
custody of all the articles that were seized from the house of the
petitioner. The application is still not disposed of, as on the date of
filing of this petition, despite the fact that the concerned Court has
heard the arguments of both parties and reserved the application
for orders to be passed on 15-10-2025. The concerned Court
instead, appears to have posted the matter for clarification. It is

6
then, the petitioner files the subject petition seeking the
afore-quoted prayer.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the continued detention of seized articles
is causing grave prejudice to the petitioner, as certain items that
were seized are essential to the petitioner’s day-to-day life. Denial
of interim custody of articles of the petitioner, who is not an
accused, amounts to unjust deprivation of the petitioner’s property.
The learned counsel submits that the Apex Court way back in 2002,
had held that timely consideration of applications seeking interim
custody of seized property is imperative. The learned counsel would
further place reliance upon the newly added provision in the BNSS.
The learned counsel would place reliance upon Section 497 of the
BNSS to buttress his submission that the concerned Court is
required to pass an order of disposal of the application within
30 days from the date of preparation of the statement. He would
submit that despite passage of six months, no order is passed.
Therefore, it is in violation of the timeline stipulated under the

7
BNSS and would thus seek a direction for timely disposal of the
application.


5. Per contra , the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Smt B. Pushpalatha would vehemently refute the submissions in
contending that, this Court cannot put pressure upon the concerned
Court to dispose of the application since, for disposal of the
application in accordance with law, certain time would be required
for hearing of the parties, but would leave the decision to the hands
of this Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.


7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. What
brings the petitioner to this Court at this juncture lies in a narrow
compass. It is, seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the
application filed by the petitioner under Sections 497 and 503 of the
BNSS. It, therefore, becomes necessary to notice Section 497 of

8
the BNSS and it’s corresponding provision in the earlier regime,
which is Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. They read as follows:

SECTION 497 OF THE BNSS SECTION 451 OF THE CRPC

“ 497. Order for custody and
disposal of property pending
trial in certain cases .—(1) When
any property is produced before
any Criminal Court or the
Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance or commit the case for
trial during any investigation,
inquiry or trial, the Court or the
Magistrate may make such order
as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending
the conclusion of the
investigation, inquiry or trial, and,
if the property is subject to
speedy and natural decay, or if it
is otherwise expedient so to do,
the Court or the Magistrate may,
after recording such evidence as it
thinks necessary, order it to be
sold or otherwise disposed of.

“ 451. Order for custody and
disposal of property pending
trial in certain cases .—When any
property is produced before any
Criminal Court during any
inquiry or trial , the Court may
make such order as it thinks fit for
the proper custody of such
property pending the conclusion of
the inquiry or trial, and, if the
property is subject to speedy and
natural decay, or if it is otherwise
expedient so to do, the Court may,
after recording such evidence as it
thinks necessary, order it to be
sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation .—For the purposes
of this section, “property”
includes—

( a ) property of any kind or

Explanation .—For the purposes
of this section, “property”
includes—
document which is produced
before the Court or which is
in its custody,

( b ) any property regarding
which an offence appears to
have been committed or
which appears to have been
used for the commission of
any offence.”


( a ) property of any kind or
document which is produced
before the Court or which is in its
custody;

( b ) any property regarding
which an offence appears to have
been committed or which appears

9
to have been used for the
commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the
Magistrate shall, within a
period of fourteen days from
the production of the property
referred to in sub-section (1)
before it, prepare a statement
of such property containing its
description in such form and
manner as the State
Government may, by rules,
provide.

(3) The Court or the
Magistrate shall cause to be
taken the photograph and if
necessary, videograph on
mobile phone or any electronic
media, of the property
referred to in sub-section (1).

(4) The statement prepared
under sub-section (2) and the
photograph or the videography
taken under sub-section (3) shall
be used as evidence in any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding
under the Sanhita.

(5) The Court or the
Magistrate shall, within a
period of thirty days after the
statement has been prepared
under sub-section (2) and the
photograph or the videography
has been taken under sub-
section (3), order the disposal,
destruction, confiscation or
delivery of the property in the
manner specified hereinafter.”

10
Section 497 of the BNSS and Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. both,
empower the concerned Court or the Magistrate to pass orders for
the custody and disposal of property pending trial in appropriate
cases. Sub-section (1) of Section 497 of the BNSS, expands the
scope of the provision, by enabling the concerned Court or the
Magistrate, to pass such orders even during the stage of
investigation, a power that was not contemplated under Section
451 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 497, which
have been introduced for the first time under the BNSS, prescribe
timelines for the disposal of seized property by the concerned Court
or the Magistrate, during the pendency of trial appropriate cases.
Sub-section (2) of Section 497 mandates that the concerned Court
or the Magistrate, shall within a period of 14 days from the date of
production of the property referred to in sub-section (1), prepare a
statement of such property containing its description in the form
and manner as provided under the concerned Rules.
Sub-section (5) of Section 497 mandates that the Court or the
Magistrate should, within a period of 30 days after the statement is
prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the
videography as obtaining under sub-section (3) is taken, pass an

11
order for disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the
property in the manner indicated therein.

8. Therefore, the timeline for disposal of property that is
confiscated is under two provisions of law. One is under
Section 497 (2) of the BNSS where preparation of statement
of all properties brought before the Court must be done
within 14 days from the production of properties and two,
under Section 497(5) of the BNSS which mandates the
concerned Court to pass an order for disposal of the property
within 30 days from the date of preparation of the statement
under Section 497(2) of the BNSS. Therefore, in all, the
concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days
from the date of the seizure.


9. On the bedrock of the mandate of the statute, the timeline
in the case at hand is required to be noticed. It is as under:

12
25-08-2025: Search and seizure of the petitioner’s
property takes place.

26-08-2025 Seizure report is prepared by the Police and
submitted before the concerned Court.

03-09-2025 Application in I.A.No.III, is filed by the
petitioner before the concerned Court,
seeking disposal/interim custody of the
property under Sections 497 & 503 of the
BNSS.

09-09-2025 The date by which the concerned Court
ought to have prepared a statement of
property under Section 497(2) of the BNSS
i.e., 14 days from the production of property
before the concerned Court.

18-09-2025 Police file their objections to the application
in I.A.No.III, filed by the petitioner under
Section 497 and 503 of the BNSS.

09-10-2025 The date by which the concerned Court
ought to have passed the order disposing of
the property under Section 497(5) of the
BNSS i.e., 30 days since the statement of
property is prepared under Section 497(2) of
the BNSS.

16-02-2026 The date on which the subject petition is
filed.


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.

13
10. Timelines fixed under the statute as obtaining under
Section 497 of the BNSS have fallen for consideration before the
High Court of Allahabad in KANAK CATTLE FEEDS PRIVATE
1
LIMITED v. STATE OF U.P . wherein the High Court considers the
purport of Section 497 of the BNSS and holds as follows:
“…. …. ….

23. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions
indicates that the same are similar. It further appears that in
exercise of power under Section 497 B.N.S.S. the
concerned court or the Magistrate is empowered to
release the property even during pending the conclusion
of the "investigation" which power was earlier not
available when the Cr.P.C. was enforced .”


10.1. The Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras, again
considers the purport of Section 497 of the BNSS in the case of R.
2
SAIJU v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THENI and holds
as follows:
“…. …. ….
32. It would also be pertinent to refer to Section
497 enacted under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of
Criminal Procedure, under which significant procedural
reforms have been introduced regarding the timely
disposal of seized property, including vehicles.

1

Application U/S 528 BNSS No.20 of 2024 decided on 05-09-2024
2

WP. Cri.(MD) No.436 of 2025 decided on 11-07-2025

14

33. Section 497 BNSS, which replaced Section 451
CrPC has introduced new proviso from 497 (2) to 497 (5)
prescribing a strict timeline of 45 days for completion of
the disposal process. As per Section 497(2), an inventory
and visual documentation (photographs/videography) of
the seized property must be prepared within 14 days of
seizure, while Section 497(5) require the Court to pass
necessary orders for disposal, confiscation, or release
within the next 30 days, ensuring a prompt and efficient
process.

34 . Once time bound disposal becomes the mandate
of the law, such specific procedure governing the same
must be followed and mechanically adhering to Section
451 CrPC, without considering the NDPS framework and
BNSS regime, is against the legislative scheme .”


10.2. Section 497 of the BNSS, as interpreted by the
aforesaid two Courts, considers the introduction of new provisions
in Section 497(2) to 497(5) which prescribe a strict timeline for
completion of the disposal process. This obligation on the Court was
not a mandate of the statute under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
Therefore, Section 497(5) mandates time bound disposal. 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.

15
11. Long before the afore-quoted judgments, the Apex Court
in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI v. STATE OF
3
GUJARAT , while laying down guidelines for disposal of seized
articles, discussed the scope and object of Section 451 of the
Cr.P.C. and observed as follows:
“…. …. ….

5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass
appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as:

(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the
inquiry or trial;

(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after
recording such evidence as it thinks necessary;

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, to dispose of the same.

6. It is submitted that despite wide powers, proper orders
are not passed by the courts. It is also pointed out that in the
State of Gujarat there is Gujarat Police Manual for disposal and
custody of such articles. As per the manual also, various
circulars are issued for maintenance of proper registers for
keeping the mudammal articles in safe custody.

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC
should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would
serve various purposes, namely:

1 . owner of the article would not suffer because of its
remaining unused or by its misappropriation;


3

(2002) 10 SCC 283

16
2 . court or the police would not be required to keep the
article in safe custody;

3 . if the proper panchnama before handing over
possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in
evidence instead of its production before the court during
the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded
describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4 . this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should
be exercised promptly so that there may not be further
chance of tampering with the articles.

8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is
raised in a number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda
Patil v. State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358 : 1977 SCC (Cri)
598] this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles
were not available for being returned to the complainant.
In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a
trunk in the police station and later it was found missing,
the question was with regard to payment of those
articles. In that context, the Court observed as under: (SCC p.
361, para 4)

“ 4 . The object and scheme of the various provisions
of the Code appear to be that where the property which
has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized
by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of
the court or of the police for any time longer than what is
absolutely necessary . As the seizure of the property by
the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the
property to a government servant, the idea is that the
property should be restored to the original owner after
the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there
may be two stages when the property may be returned
to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during
any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary
where the property concerned is subject to speedy or
natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons
also which may justify the disposal of the property to the
owner or otherwise in the interest of justice . The High Court
and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of
the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles

17
concerned must be produced before the court or should be in
its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any
property which is in the control of the court either
directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court
and a just and proper order should be passed by the
court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police
always acts under the direct control of the court and has
to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or
trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises
an overall control on the actions of the police officers in
every case where it has taken cognizance .”

(emphasis supplied)

9. The Court further observed that where the property
is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie
defence made out that the State or its officers had taken
due care and caution to protect the property, the
Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends
of justice so require, order payment of the value of the
property.

10. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers
under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised promptly and
at the earliest.

Valuable articles and currency notes

11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden
or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious
stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such
articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In
our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In
such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate
orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the
earliest.

12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that
such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft,
robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be
handed over to the complainant after:

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

18

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that
such articles would be produced if required at the
time of trial; and

(3) after taking proper security.

…. …. ….

21. However, these powers are to be exercised by the
Magistrate concerned. We hope and trust that the
Magistrate concerned would take immediate action for
seeing that powers under Section 451 CrPC are properly
and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a
long time at the police station, in any case, for not more
than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be
achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of
the High Court concerned in seeing that the rules framed
by the High Court with regard to such articles are
implemented properly .”

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, emphasized on the
need for expeditious and prompt disposal of applications under
Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and holds that seized property should not
remain in police custody for more than fifteen days to one month.

12. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the
High Courts of Allahabad and Madras, and in view of the failure of
the concerned Court to dispose of the petitioner's application within
the timelines prescribed under Section 497 of the BNSS, the

19
petition deserves to succeed with the afore-quoted prayer being
granted.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Writ Petition is allowed .

(ii) Mandamus issues to the XLVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to dispose of
I.A.No.III dated 03-09-2025 filed by the petitioner
within a period of one week from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, bearing in mind the observations
made by this Court in the course of the order.




Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


bkp
CT:MJ