Undisputedly owned seized property should be released under BNSS Section 497 to prevent deterioration.

The petitioner sought return of a Vivo T5 Pro 5G mobile phone seized in Crime No. 199 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The Principal Special Court under the EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, dismissed his application for release of the phone.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision, asserting that his ownership was undisputed and that continued custody would cause the phone to deteriorate.

The State opposed release on the ground that the phone was connected with the alleged offences.

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

2. Whether the phone could be released to the petitioner subject to conditions while preserving its availability for the proceedings.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 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 BNSS empowers a Magistrate to order disposal or delivery of seized property not produced before a criminal court, including delivery to the person entitled to possession on appropriate conditions.

The Court also relied on *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat*, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized property should not be kept in custody unnecessarily and may be released on appropriate bond, guarantee or security to ensure its production when required.

It referred to Allahabad High Court decisions concerning release of seized vehicles despite pending confiscation proceedings.

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

Applying the property-custody principles in Section 497 BNSS and *Sunderbhai*, it reasoned that retaining the phone in court custody would serve no useful purpose and risk deterioration, while conditions could secure its production when required.

It therefore found the Special Court’s refusal unsustainable.

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

No order as to costs.