The Karnataka High Court has held that courts dealing with seized property under Section 497 BNSS must strictly adhere to the prescribed timelines for its disposal, requiring preparation of the property's statement within 14 days of its production before the court and an order regarding its disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within the subsequent 30 days.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that Section 497(2) and Section 497(5) BNSS collectively prescribe a 45-day period from the date of seizure for the concerned court or Magistrate to pass an order regarding disposal of the seized property.

“The timeline for disposal of property that is confiscated is under two provisions of law. One is under Section 497 (2) of the BNSS where preparation of statement of all properties brought before the Court must be done within 14 days from the production of properties and two, under Section 497(5) of the BNSS which mandates the concerned Court to pass an order for disposal of the property within 30 days from the date of preparation of the statement under Section 497(2) of the BNSS. Therefore, in all, the concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days from the date of the seizure,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed.

The present petition was filed by Mukesh Jain, seeking a direction to the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to dispose of his application seeking interim custody of the seized property in connection with a cybercrime case. Jain contended that the concerned court has violated the timeline stipulated under the BNSS.

The Court noted that Section 497 of BNSS and Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both dealt with orders concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial. However, Section 497 (1) of the BNSS has expanded the scope, allowing the Magistrate to pass such orders even during the stage of investigation, a power that was not contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., the Court observed.

Further drawing a distinction between the two, the Court said that sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 497, newly introduced under the BNSS, prescribe timelines for the disposal of seized property by the concerned Court or the Magistrate.

“Sub-section (2) of Section 497 mandates that the concerned Court or the Magistrate, shall within a period of 14 days from the date of production of the property referred to in sub-section (1), prepare a statement of such property containing its description in the form and manner as provided under the concerned Rules,” the Court said.

It added, “Sub-section (5) of Section 497 mandates that the Court or the Magistrate should, within a period of 30 days after the statement is prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography as obtaining under sub-section (3) is taken, pass an order for disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner indicated therein.”

Statutory Mandate Rendered “Nugatory” By Delay

Applying the statutory timeline to the case, the Court noted that the petitioner's property was searched and seized on August 25, 2025, while the seizure report was submitted before the concerned court on August 26.

The petitioner filed his application seeking disposal/interim custody of the seized property on September 3, 2025. The Court noted that the concerned Magistrate ought to have prepared the statement of the property by September 9 and passed the requisite order by October 9.

However, when the writ petition came to be filed on February 16, 2026, the application had still not been disposed of.

“A perusal at the link in the chain of dates would indicate that, the concerned Court has rendered the mandate of the statute nugatory by not adhering to the timeline so fixed under the statute,” the Court observed.

Relying on Allahabad High Court's ruling in Kanak Cattle Feeds Private Limited vs. State of UP and Madras High Court's judgement in R. Saiju vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni, the Court said, “The concerned Court or the Courts which consider applications under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS must, therefore, strictly adhere to the mandate of the statute.”

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgement in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, which had held that the seized articles should not be kept in police custody for not more than fifteen days to one month.

“In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts of Allahabad and Madras, and in view of the failure of the concerned Court to dispose of the petitioner's application within the timelines prescribed under Section 497 of the BNSS, the petition deserves to succeed with the afore-quoted prayer being granted,” the Court held, allowing the writ petition.

The Court directed the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to dispose of the petitioner's application within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order.

Background

The case arose out of a cybercrime complaint concerning an alleged fraud of approximately Rs 4.83 crore. According to the complaint, the victim, Rajath Jain, who had been engaged in stock market trading, came across a Telegram group titled “Unlisted Shares”, allegedly operated by Akashdeep Singh and his team. He was allegedly induced to invest in unlisted shares on the assurance of substantial returns.

It was alleged that Rajath Jain was asked to pay Rs 4.5 crore for 3,000 shares and that, acting on the assurances, Rs 4.83 crore was transferred to various bank accounts given in the said Telegram group. The group was subsequently deleted.

A complaint was registered on July 8, 2025, leading to registration of a crime for offences under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act

Rajath Jain, in his statement, named many people, including the petitioner. He alleged that on the advice of Akash Deep Singh, certain amount was transferred to the account of the petitioner as well.

Subsequently, a search warrant was issued and the petitioner's residence and other places were searched. The police seized several articles, including cash, gold ornaments, silver items, cheque books, gold photo frames and mobile phones. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, seeking interim custody of the seized articles.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the High Court cannot put pressure on the concerned court to dispose of the application since some time would be required for hearing the parties and disposal in accordance with law.

Case: MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA,

WRIT PETITION No.5267 OF 2026 (GM - RES)

Click Here To Read/Download Order