Magistrates should promptly release seized property to its undisputed owner, subject to suitable safeguards.

Police seized the petitioner’s mobile phone and Lenovo laptop in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 5 and 7(1) of the Lottery Act and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner sought their return before the Judicial Magistrate, who dismissed the application on 20 May 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision, asserting ownership and the risk of deterioration while the devices remained in custody.

The State opposed release on the ground that the devices were involved in the alleged offences.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the seized mobile phone and laptop was sustainable when the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed.

2. Whether the devices could be released subject to conditions to preserve their availability for the proceedings.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property produced before it during an inquiry or trial; it also provides for preparation of a property statement, photography or videography, and subsequent disposal or delivery.

Section 503 empowers a Magistrate to order disposal of or delivery of seized property where it has not been produced before a criminal court, including delivery to the person entitled to possession on conditions the Magistrate considers appropriate.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court emphasized prompt exercise of property-custody powers and the use of bonds, guarantees, or security rather than allowing seized articles to remain in custody and deteriorate.

The Court also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that property need not be retained merely because related proceedings are pending, where its release can be secured by conditions.

The Court found that neither the State nor any other person disputed the petitioner’s ownership of the mobile phone and laptop.

Retaining the devices for a prolonged period would serve no useful purpose and could result in their deterioration; the State’s assertion that they were involved in the offences did not, in the Court’s view, justify refusing release altogether.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the powers under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, the Court held that the devices could be returned while safeguarding their availability for the proceedings through a bank guarantee and a bond.

It directed the Magistrate to release the mobile phone and Lenovo laptop to the petitioner forthwith, upon his furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹5,000 and executing a bond to produce the devices whenever required and not to make any changes or variations to them.

No order as to costs was made.