Undisputed ownership warrants release of seized property under safeguards to prevent deterioration.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Vivo V60E mobile phone seized by the respondent police on 26 June 2026 in Crime No. 247 of 2026, registered under Sections 123 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, dismissed his application for return of the phone on 25 August 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision, contending that ownership was undisputed and that continued custody would cause the phone to deteriorate; the State opposed the revision.

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

2. Whether the phone should be released subject to conditions to preserve its availability for the proceedings.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), empowers a criminal court to make appropriate orders for custody and disposal of property produced before it, including where disposal is expedient; Section 503 concerns a Magistrate’s orders regarding property seized by police but not produced before a criminal court, including delivery to the person entitled to possession.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court emphasised prompt orders for seized property and the use of bonds, guarantees, or security rather than prolonged retention.

The judgment also referred to Allahabad High Court decisions holding that pending proceedings concerning seized vehicles do not, by themselves, bar release where ownership is established and safeguards can secure production.

The Court found that the petitioner’s ownership was undisputed and that neither the State nor any other person claimed the phone.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the relevant BNSS provisions, it reasoned that continued retention served no useful purpose and risked deterioration of the phone, while a bond and bank guarantee could ensure its production when required.

It therefore held that the Magistrate had not properly exercised the available power to order release.

It directed the Magistrate to release the mobile phone forthwith upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹2,000 and a bond to produce the phone when required and not to alter it.

No order as to costs was made.