Karnataka HC Lets Man Get Seized Cash And Documents Back On ₹3.62-Crore Indemnity Bond, With Wife’s Property Papers As Security

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court’s requirement that the petitioner furnish surety for ₹3,62,50,000 should be modified in light of his offer to provide security by depositing the original documents relating to his wife’s immovable property.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court’s order was modified insofar as it required surety for ₹3,62,50,000.

It also directed

The Trial Court was directed to release the seized documents and cash listed in PF Nos. 04/2024, 15/2024 and 16/2024 immediately upon the petitioner executing an indemnity bond for ₹3,62,50,000 and depositing with the Trial Court the original documents relating to premises No. 228, JCR Extension, 6th Cross, Chitradurga, standing in his wife’s name.

The Court stated that the order was confined to the case’s peculiar circumstances and was not to be treated as a precedent.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of documents and cash seized in connection with Crime No. 3/2024.

pp. 2–3, 8

The Trial Court allowed his application under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, subject to an indemnity bond of ₹3,62,50,000 and surety for a like sum.

pp. 2–3, 8

The FIR against the petitioner had been quashed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the respondent’s challenge.

pp. 9–10

The petitioner accepted the indemnity-bond requirement but sought to satisfy the surety condition by depositing the original documents relating to immovable property standing in his wife’s name.

p. 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court’s requirement that the petitioner furnish surety for ₹3,62,50,000 should be modified in light of his offer to provide security by depositing the original documents relating to his wife’s immovable property.

pp. 9–10

ii.2. Whether the documents and cash seized should be released upon execution of the indemnity bond and provision of the proposed security.

p. 10

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023; the underlying application for release of seized property was made under Section 503 of the BNSS.

p. 1, 2

The Court applied no cited precedent or separately articulated statutory test. It exercised its jurisdiction to modify the surety condition in the interests of justice, while retaining the indemnity bond and requiring security in the form of the original property documents.

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 503

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 503

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the FIR had been quashed and that the Trial Court had consequently allowed the release application.

p. 10

Although it considered the indemnity bond of ₹3,62,50,000 proper, it regarded the amount as “huge/enormous” and found it just and appropriate to permit the petitioner to provide security through the original documents relating to the identified property, rather than require surety for the same sum.

p. 10

The Court limited its ruling to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

p. 11