Delhi HC Removes 25% FDR/Bank Guarantee شرط For Muthoot Finance To Take Custody Of Pledged Jewellery Complainant Didn’t Identify

FIR No. 17/2025 was registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following a complaint that the accused had taken the complainant’s jewellery and pledged it with Muthoot Finance branches to obtain loans.

Police seized 634.5 grams of jewellery described as “gold like metal jewellery.” At a test identification before the JMFC, the complainant identified the articles marked A but did not identify those marked B.

Both the complainant and Muthoot Finance sought interim custody of the seized articles. The Sessions Court ordered that Mark B be released to the company subject to conditions, including a 25% bank deposit or guarantee; it directed that Mark A remain in court-controlled safe custody. It also required an affidavit from a Regional Manager concerning the relevant loan accounts and records. Muthoot Finance challenged the security condition, the storage direction for Mark A, and the required rank of the officer filing the affidavit.

The application for interim custody was brought under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Sessions Court’s order contemplated final orders under Section 498 BNSS.

The impugned order also referred to Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, concerning a pawnee’s right of sale, and suspended that right in respect of Mark B during the trial.

The High Court’s decision was case-specific: it considered whether the imposed safeguards were warranted in light of the complainant’s identification of the seized articles and the parties’ respective interests in their custody.

Because the complainant had not identified Mark B, the High Court considered the 25% security requirement an unnecessary and unwarranted burden on Muthoot Finance and set it aside. The remaining safeguards for Mark B—including an indemnity bond, preservation in sealed and inventoried condition, restrictions on dealing with the articles, and production when directed—were not disturbed.

By contrast, the complainant claimed ownership of Mark A and had identified those articles; the Court therefore found no basis to replace the direction for court-controlled safe custody with storage at the company’s facility. It noted that the company could seek recovery of the storage charges depending on the trial’s outcome.

As the respondents did not object to the proposed change in the officer’s rank, the Court permitted the Branch Manager to file the required affidavit.

The revision petition was disposed of.