Karnataka HC: BNSS Mandates 45-Day Disposal of Seized Property, Magistrate's Delay Draws Mandamus

Applying Section 497 of the BNSS for the first time in the context of a cyber-fraud search and seizure, the Karnataka High Court directed a Bengaluru magistrate to decide a pending interim custody application within one week, holding that the statutory 45-day timeline had been rendered “nugatory” by inaction.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in a CAV order pronounced on 7 July 2026, allowed a writ petition filed by Mukesh Jain, a resident of Hubli, whose cash, gold ornaments, silver items, cheque books, bank passbooks and mobile phones had been seized during a search conducted in connection with a cyber-fraud investigation. The XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru had sat over his application for interim custody of those articles for nearly six months without passing any order, despite having heard arguments and reserving the matter for orders. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly, issued a writ of mandamus directing the magistrate to dispose of the application within one week of receiving a copy of the order. The judgment turns on sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — provisions that have no parallel in the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — which together impose a hard ceiling of 45 days for the disposal of seized property.

The Cyber-Fraud Investigation and the Search

The underlying crime arises from a complaint filed on 8 July 2025 by one Manish Kumar before the CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. His brother, Rajath Jain, had been trading in stocks for five years. Rajath came across a Telegram group titled ‘Unlisted Shares’, allegedly owned and operated by one Akashdeep Singh and his team. He was induced to invest money in unlisted shares through the group, with assurances of substantial returns backed by circulated success stories of other investors.

Rajath was told he needed to pay ₹4.5 crores for 3,000 shares, after which the shares would be transferred to him. Acting on that assurance, an aggregate of ₹4.83 crores was transferred to various bank accounts specified in the Telegram group. The group was deleted immediately after receiving the transfers. Crime No.250 of 2025 was registered for offences under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, initially against unknown persons.

On 7 August 2025, a further statement of Rajath Jain was recorded. Mukesh Jain and several others were named in that statement, which alleged that amounts had been transferred to the account of M/s Poonam Steel and other accounts, including the petitioner's, on the advice of Akashdeep Singh. Mukesh Jain's defence was that none of the bank accounts mentioned in the complaint belonged to him.

On 13 August 2025, a search warrant was issued under Section 96 of the BNSS. Searches were conducted at Mukesh Jain's residence and other places. The seized articles included cash, gold ornaments, silver items, cheque books, bank passbooks, gold photo frames, watches and mobile phones. A seizure report was submitted before the concerned magistrate on 26 August 2025.

The Application That Was Never Decided

On 3 September 2025, Mukesh Jain filed I.A.No.III before the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, seeking interim custody of all seized articles. The police filed objections on 18 September 2025. The magistrate heard arguments from both sides and reserved the application for orders on 15 October 2025. Instead of pronouncing an order, the court posted the matter for clarification. No order had been passed by 16 February 2026, the date the writ petition was filed.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahajan B.K., argued that the continued detention of the articles was causing grave prejudice because several items were essential to the petitioner's day-to-day life. He submitted that the petitioner had not been named as an accused in the FIR and that denial of interim custody amounted to unjust deprivation of property. He placed specific reliance on Section 497(5) of the BNSS, which requires an order to be passed within 30 days from the preparation of the property statement, and argued that more than six months had elapsed without compliance.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor, Smt. B. Pushpalatha, contended that the court could not be pressured into disposing of the application and that some time was necessary for hearing both parties. She ultimately left the matter to the High Court's discretion.

Section 497 BNSS and Its Departure from Section 451 CrPC

Justice Nagaprasanna set out the text of both Section 497 of the BNSS and its predecessor, Section 451 of the CrPC, side by side. The comparison reveals two structural differences that the court treated as decisive.

First, Section 497(1) of the BNSS extends the power to order custody or disposal of property to the stage of investigation — a power that Section 451 of the CrPC confined to the stages of inquiry or trial. Second, and more directly relevant to this petition, sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 497 introduce mandatory timelines that have no equivalent in the CrPC.

Section 497(2) requires the court or magistrate to prepare a statement of seized property, with its description in the prescribed form, within 14 days from the date of production of the property. Section 497(3) requires photographs and, if necessary, videography of the property. Section 497(5) then mandates that the court or magistrate pass an order for disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property within 30 days after the statement under sub-section (2) has been prepared and documentation under sub-section (3) has been taken.

Justice Nagaprasanna read the two timelines together: 14 days for the statement, then 30 days for the disposal order. The total outer limit from the date of seizure is therefore 45 days. The court found this to be a hard mandate, not a directory guideline.

How the Timeline Was Breached

The court mapped the key dates against the statutory deadlines:

• 25 August 2025 — Search and seizure of the petitioner's property.
• 26 August 2025 — Seizure report submitted before the magistrate.
• 3 September 2025 — I.A.No.III filed by the petitioner under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS.
• 9 September 2025 — Deadline by which the property statement should have been prepared under Section 497(2) (14 days from production).
• 18 September 2025 — Police file objections to I.A.No.III.
• 9 October 2025 — Deadline by which a disposal order should have been passed under Section 497(5) (30 days after the statement).
• 16 February 2026 — Date the writ petition was filed, with no order having been passed.

The court observed that the magistrate had “rendered the mandate of the statute nugatory by not adhering to the timeline so fixed under the statute.” By the time the petition was filed, the outer limit under Section 497 of the BNSS had been exceeded by more than four months.

Precedents Relied Upon

Justice Nagaprasanna drew on three decisions. The Allahabad High Court in Kanak Cattle Feeds Private Limited v. State of U.P. (Application U/S 528 BNSS No.20 of 2024, decided on 5 September 2024) had held that Section 497 of the BNSS empowers the concerned court or magistrate to release property even during the pendency of investigation, a power unavailable under the CrPC.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in R. Saiju v. The Superintendent of Police, Theni (WP.Cri.(MD) No.436 of 2025, decided on 11 July 2025) held that Section 497 of the BNSS introduced a strict 45-day timeline for completion of the disposal process and that mechanically adhering to Section 451 CrPC without considering the BNSS regime was against the legislative scheme.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, which predates the BNSS but established that powers under Section 451 of the CrPC must be exercised promptly and judiciously, and that seized property should not remain in police custody for more than fifteen days to one month. The Supreme Court had noted that the object of the Code is that property in the control of a court should be disposed of expeditiously so that owners do not suffer from its continued detention or risk of misappropriation.

Why the Reasoning Matters

The court's analysis of Section 497 is significant because it treats the 45-day outer limit as a binding obligation on the magistrate, not a target. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 497 are new to Indian criminal procedure and have been the subject of only a handful of High Court decisions. Justice Nagaprasanna's order consolidates the readings by the Allahabad and Madras High Courts and applies them to a factual setting where the property at issue had been seized from a person who was not the complainant and had not been formally charged as an accused at the time of the application.

The judgment also highlights a practical gap: even after a magistrate hears arguments and reserves an application for orders, delay in pronouncing the order is enough to attract a writ of mandamus. The court's direction that the magistrate must pass an order within one week of receiving a copy of this order, bearing in mind the observations made, leaves the magistrate with no further procedural headroom to defer the decision.

Order

Writ Petition No.5267 of 2026 was allowed. A writ of mandamus was issued to the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, directing the disposal of I.A.No.III dated 3 September 2025, filed by Mukesh Jain under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.