Seized property may be retained during investigation where its source and evidentiary relevance remain under examination.

The Lokayukta Police registered Crime No. 1/2026 against H.M. Janardhana, a Superintendent Engineer, for alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets.

The petitioner, a private Class-I contractor and not an accused in that crime, had cash of ₹1,69,30,000 and an Apple iPhone seized from his residence during a search on 12 February 2026.

He sought release of the items under Sections 497 read with 503 of the BNSS, relying on his business activities, bank withdrawals and income-tax returns to explain the cash, and asserting that the phone was his personal property.

The Sessions Court rejected the application because the investigation was ongoing and the items were said to be required for investigation; the petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Whether the Sessions Court’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application for release of the seized cash and mobile phone called for interference in revision.

The petitioner sought release of the seized property under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the revision was presented under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the petition also referring to the corresponding BNSS provisions.

The Court confined its inquiry to the custody and release of the seized property, leaving questions of ownership, lawful source and any connection to the accused for investigation.

No judicial precedents were cited, and the judgment did not formulate a further statutory test for release.

The Court considered the petitioner’s non-accused status and the seizure from his residence, together with his materials explaining the source of the cash, but held that the source still required verification and made no final finding on ownership or legality.

It also accepted that the mobile phone could be required for forensic examination and preservation or extraction of electronic evidence.

Given the ongoing investigation and the asserted investigative need for the seized items, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Sessions Court’s refusal to release them.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of as no longer requiring consideration.