The High Court of Telangana has clarified that the absence of a charge sheet cannot be a ground to deny interim custody of a vehicle under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the rights of innocent owners whose property is seized during investigations, even when they are not accused. The decision provides critical procedural clarity for practitioners handling seizures under special statutes like the NDPS Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Shaik Bee Jan Bee, is the lawful owner of a Bajaj Pulsar-150 DTS BS-VI motorcycle bearing registration number TG-04-D-5958. The vehicle was seized by the Kamepalli Police Station in connection with Crime No.246 of 2025, registered under the NDPS Act. The petitioner has never been named as an accused in the case, nor has any allegation been made against her involvement in the offence.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Section 503 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Special Sessions Judge at Khammam seeking interim custody of the vehicle. On 28.01.2026, the Trial Court returned the application on two grounds:
- Failure to produce the original Registration Certificate
- Non-filing of the charge sheet in Crime No.246 of 2025
The petitioner challenged this order through a criminal petition under Section 528 of BNSS, arguing that the charge sheet is not a prerequisite for interim custody applications.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate release of the vehicle, asserting that continued custody without trial or accusation violates her right to property and due process under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 503 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits denial of interim custody of a vehicle solely on the ground that the charge sheet has not been filed, when the applicant is not an accused and the investigation remains incomplete.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that Section 503 explicitly allows any person claiming ownership of seized property to seek interim custody, irrespective of whether a charge sheet has been filed. He relied on the plain language of the provision, which does not condition relief on the completion of investigation. He further cited State of Maharashtra v. M. Hanumantharao to emphasize that property rights cannot be indefinitely suspended without judicial scrutiny.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that without a charge sheet, the Trial Court could not assess the nexus between the vehicle and the alleged offence. He argued that premature release might hinder investigation and cited general principles of caution in NDPS cases, though no specific statutory bar was cited.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the text of Section 503 of BNSS, which states that any person claiming an interest in seized property may apply for its interim custody. The provision does not require the filing of a charge sheet as a precondition. The Court observed that the Trial Court’s reliance on the absence of a charge sheet was legally unsustainable.
"The requirement of a charge sheet for adjudicating an application under Section 503 is not only unsupported by the statute but also defeats the very purpose of interim relief, which is to prevent irreparable loss to an innocent owner during prolonged investigation."
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s ownership was not disputed, and the vehicle’s seizure was purely incidental to the investigation of a third party. Denying interim custody on procedural grounds unrelated to the merits of ownership or risk of evidence tampering amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of property.
The Court rejected the notion that NDPS cases warrant blanket procedural rigidity. It emphasized that while special statutes may impose strict investigative protocols, they cannot override statutory safeguards for innocent third parties.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court held that Section 503 of BNSS entitles an innocent owner to seek interim custody of seized property without awaiting the filing of a charge sheet. The Trial Court was directed to entertain the re-submitted application within three days and release the vehicle upon verification of ownership documents and necessary authorization.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is Not Dependent on Charge Sheet Filing
- Practitioners can now confidently file Section 503 BNSS applications immediately after seizure, even if the investigation is ongoing
- Courts must not impose additional conditions not found in the statute
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why release would prejudice the investigation
Ownership Documentation Is Sufficient for Prima Facie Claim
- A valid Registration Certificate and proof of purchase are adequate to establish prima facie ownership
- The Trial Court’s demand for the original RC was valid, but its refusal to hear the application on that basis was not
- Petitioners should always submit certified copies with affidavits if originals are unavailable
NDPS Cases Do Not Override General Property Rights
- Special laws like NDPS cannot be used to justify indefinite detention of third-party property
- Courts must balance investigative needs with constitutional rights under Article 21
- This precedent applies equally to vehicles, mobile phones, and other seized assets in non-accused persons’ possession
