BNSS allows interim release of seized valuables during investigation after documentation, Madras High Court rules

The respondent investigated allegations that the petitioner’s father-in-law, a former Minister, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

During a search of the petitioner’s house, police found a key to a bank locker held by her and her husband, opened the locker, inventoried and photographed the gold and silver jewellery inside, and froze it.

The petitioner claimed the jewellery had been gifted to her by her father at her marriage and at baby-shower ceremonies, and sought release of the locker and its contents.

The Sessions Judge dismissed her application, reasoning that she was the wife of an accused and that the investigation was pending.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

1. Whether a court may grant interim custody of seized property under Section 497 BNSS while the investigation is still pending.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim to the jewellery and the completion of inventory, photography and videography justified interim custody subject to conditions.

Section 497(1) BNSS empowers a court or Magistrate to make orders for the custody or disposal of property during an investigation, inquiry or trial; the Court held that the provision applies to property that is not liable to speedy or natural decay, including gold and silver jewellery.

Sections 497(2) and (3) provide for preparation of a statement and photography or videography of the property, while Section 497(4) makes those records evidence in subsequent proceedings; the Court treated those measures as addressing the need to retain the physical property.

Section 497(5) was relied on as the basis for making an appropriate order for interim custody.

The Court distinguished Section 451 CrPC because it did not include the word “investigation,” which appears in Section 497(1) BNSS.

No judicial precedent was relied on.

The FIR was registered after the BNSS came into force, so Section 497 governed the application.

The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that interim custody was available only for property liable to decay, holding that the provision also covers durable property such as jewellery.

Since the jewellery had been inventoried, photographed and videographed, and those records could serve as evidence, retaining the items solely for evidentiary purposes was unnecessary.

The petitioner’s assertion that the jewellery was gifted to her remained for the investigating officer to examine; nevertheless, the Court held that interim custody could be granted subject to safeguards.

The petitioner was directed not to dispute the inventory, alienate or alter the jewellery, and to produce it whenever required by the police or the Court.