A victim’s interim custody of a sale deed cannot be burdened by onerous bonds or alienation restraints.

The petitioner, a widow and owner of property under a registered sale deed dated 15 September 2005, entrusted the original deed to the second respondent, who had offered to find a buyer.

After a proposed sale fell through and the petitioner returned the money received from the prospective buyer, the second respondent allegedly refused to return the deed and threatened her.

The petitioner lodged a police complaint; during investigation, the deed was recovered from A2 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate.

The petitioner sought interim custody under Section 497 BNSS.

The Magistrate granted custody subject to six conditions, including a ₹5,000,000 personal bond, two sureties, a restriction on alienating the property, and an obligation to produce the property when required.

The petitioner challenged those conditions in revision.

Section 497 BNSS authorises a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property or documents produced before it during an investigation, inquiry, or trial; the provision also requires preparation of a property statement and, where applicable, photographs or videography.

Section 498(2) BNSS, concerning disposal of property at the conclusion of proceedings, permits delivery to a person claiming entitlement either without conditions or subject to a bond, with or without sureties, to restore the property if the order is later modified or set aside.

The Court held that the custody conditions must be considered in light of the nature and scope of the case and should not impose onerous or illogical burdens on the de facto complainant who is seeking return of her document.

The petitioner was the claimed owner of the sale deed and the victim who had reported its alleged wrongful retention; the case concerned alleged criminal breach of trust, wrongful restraint, mischief, intimidation, and extortion, rather than adjudication of the deed’s genuineness.

The Court considered the ₹5,000,000 bond, two ₹5,000,000 sureties, restriction on alienation, and requirement to produce the property when required disproportionate and illogical in the circumstances.

It also observed that the Magistrate appeared to have imposed conditions on the mistaken premise that delivery or custody must invariably be conditional.

The Court left undisturbed the conditions requiring a registration copy of the sale deed and preparation of a panchnama.

The High Court modified the Magistrate’s order by setting aside the requirements of a ₹5,000,000 personal bond, two sureties of ₹5,000,000 each, production of the property when required, and the prohibition on alienating the property.

The remaining two conditions—production of a registration copy of the sale deed and preparation of a panchnama—were maintained.