Seized cash may be released during trial against an equivalent bank guarantee absent justification for continued retention.

The appellant challenged the order dated 1 May 2025 passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Bihar, Patna, rejecting his prayer for release of ₹11,19,500 seized from his possession and an Apple iPhone belonging to his father.

During the appeal, the High Court directed the NIA to disclose whether the seized cash had been deposited and, if so, why it could not be released upon adequate security; the NIA was also directed to explain the continued seizure of the iPhone.

The appellant undertook to secure the cash by keeping an equivalent amount in his bank account as a bank guarantee.

The NIA subsequently stated that the cash had been deposited in its SBI account and that the deposit receipt had been produced before the Special NIA Court as an exhibit.

As regards the iPhone, the NIA stated that it was still under examination.

Whether the seized cash amounting to ₹11,19,500 could be released to the appellant during the pendency of the trial upon furnishing an equivalent bank guarantee and undertaking?

Whether the Apple iPhone seized during the raid should be released at that stage, notwithstanding the NIA’s assertion that it was still under examination?

The Court applied the principle that property seized during a criminal investigation or trial may, where continued physical retention is not shown to be necessary, be released subject to adequate safeguards securing its production or value.

The safeguard accepted in this case was a bank guarantee for an amount equal to the cash released, together with an undertaking to abide by future orders of the trial court.

The Court also applied the principle that an article still required for forensic or investigative examination should not ordinarily be released while that examination remains pending.

The NIA confirmed that the cash had already been deposited in its bank account and did not provide any reason why it should continue to be retained after such deposit.

Since the appellant was willing to furnish a bank guarantee for the full amount and to comply with the trial court’s future directions, the Court found that the value and availability of the seized money could be adequately protected without continued retention of the cash.

In contrast, the NIA stated that the iPhone was still being examined and that investigative work concerning it was ongoing. The Court therefore declined to interfere with its seizure at that stage.

The NIA was directed to release ₹11,19,500 to the appellant during the pendency of the trial upon his furnishing, within four weeks, a bank guarantee for an equal amount issued by a nationalised bank in India.

The bank guarantee was required to be extended from time to time during the trial, and the appellant was directed to furnish an undertaking before the trial court to abide by its orders.

The request for release of the Apple iPhone was declined at that stage because it remained necessary for ongoing examination.