Madras HC Gives Best Money Gold Manager Interim Custody Of 108.86g Seized Bar, Subject To Bond And Company Authorisation

The petitioner, a branch manager of Best Money Gold and the de facto complainant in Crime No. 1237 of 2015, sought interim custody of a gold bar weighing 108.860 grams, recovered by police and held by the trial court.

He applied under Sections 497 read with 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai, dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner’s earlier applications had been dismissed and the criminal case remained pending.

Neither party adduced evidence before the trial court.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal in revision; the State accepted that he was the de facto complainant and the company’s branch manager.

Section 497 BNSS empowers a criminal court to make orders for the proper custody of property produced before it during investigation, inquiry, or trial; Section 498 addresses disposal of property at the conclusion of proceedings; and Section 503 empowers a Magistrate to order disposal or delivery of seized property not produced before a criminal court to the person entitled to possession.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized property should not be kept for long periods and that interim release may be ordered on suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.

In Selvam v. State by Inspector of Police, the Madras High Court stated that applications for return of seized vehicles should be considered on their merits, without treating the claimant’s status as an accused as a bar.

The court applied the principle that property involved in a criminal case should not be retained unnecessarily when its custody can be secured by appropriate conditions.

The Magistrate had dismissed the application because earlier applications were rejected and the criminal case was pending, but those considerations did not adequately address whether the gold bar could safely be released subject to safeguards.

Treating the gold bar as property capable of interim custody under Section 497, the High Court relied on the principle against prolonged retention of seized property.

Given the nature of the property and the petitioner’s connection to the company, it ordered delivery subject to a bond, photographs of the bar, and proof that the company authorized him to receive it.

The application for interim custody was allowed, with delivery of the gold bar conditional on the petitioner executing a bond for ₹3,00,000 with two sureties for like sums, filing photographs showing all sides of the bar, and producing the company’s due authorization.

The Magistrate was directed to deliver the bar only after those conditions were met.