Seized property should be promptly released to its undisputed owner subject to appropriate safeguards.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Samsung Z Fold 7 mobile phone seized by the respondent police in Crime No. 164 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 189(2) and 292 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 41(b) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act.

After the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Alandur, dismissed her application for return of the phone on 29 July 2026, she filed this criminal revision seeking to set aside that order and obtain its release.

The petitioner relied on her undisputed ownership and the risk of deterioration while the phone remained in custody; the State opposed release on the ground that the phone was connected with the alleged offences.

Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to release the seized mobile phone was sustainable where the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed.

Whether the phone should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions to secure its production during proceedings.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for custody of property pending inquiry or trial and provides for its documentation and disposal; Section 503 permits a Magistrate to order disposal or delivery of seized property to the person entitled to possession when it has not been produced before a criminal court.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court reiterated that seized property should not be kept in custody unnecessarily and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security to ensure its return when required.

The Court also referred to Nand v. State of U.P., Jai Prakash v. State of U.P., and Kamaljeet Singh v. State of U.P. for the proposition that pending proceedings concerning seized property do not, by themselves, bar release on suitable conditions.

The Court considered the petitioner’s ownership undisputed and noted that neither the State nor another person claimed ownership of the phone.

It concluded that continued retention would serve no useful purpose and could cause the property to deteriorate, while release could be safeguarded by requiring a guarantee and an undertaking to produce the phone when required and not to alter it.

On that basis, it held that the Magistrate’s refusal to release the phone was unsustainable.

The Magistrate was directed to release the phone to the petitioner upon her furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹2,000 and a bond undertaking to produce it whenever required and not to make any changes or variations to it.

No order as to costs was made.