#seized property

The Kerala High Court has ruled that once a criminal investigation is complete, the owner of a seized vehicle is entitled to interim custody, provided they furnish a bond and agree to restrictions on inter-state movement. This clarifies that prolonged retention of property without trial violates property rights under Article 300A and sets a precedent for timely return of assets in pending cases.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that seized funds must be returned upon acquittal, even if temporarily transferred under interim orders, because confiscation without a conviction violates the presumption of innocence and the statutory framework under BNSS. This sets a critical precedent for all accused persons whose property is seized during investigation, ensuring financial restitution as a right, not a privilege.

The Rajasthan High Court struck down a Rs.20 lakh bank guarantee as an excessive and disproportionate condition for releasing a seized vehicle in a forest offence case, aligning with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai. This ruling protects property rights of innocent owners and curbs arbitrary financial demands by authorities in non-commercial regulatory offences.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that prolonged detention of a vehicle seized in a fraud case violates property rights under CrPC 451 and 457 if it is not essential to the prosecution’s evidence. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Perichi Gounder, the court held that such assets can be released on bond to prevent irreparable loss, setting a critical precedent for economic offence defendants whose property is held without necessity.

Karnataka High Court reinforces judicial hierarchy by mandating Sessions Courts to follow High Court directives under BNSS Sections 497 and 503 for interim custody of seized property, setting aside an order denying release of silver articles and cash worth Rs. 17.4+ lakhs. The ruling underscores that lower courts cannot disregard binding superior court directions, ensuring procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that a vehicle seized in a narcotic case must be released if no prima facie evidence links it to the offence. The court mandated release on a ₹50,000 bond, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene or registration in another jurisdiction does not justify prolonged detention, reinforcing proportionality in property seizures under criminal law.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act cannot be detained indefinitely merely for being used as conveyance. The court directed release upon bond and undertaking, emphasizing proportionality and citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai. This sets a critical safeguard for property rights of accused persons during trial.

The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered the interim release of seized medicinal herbs pending forensic confirmation, ruling that prolonged police custody of perishable forest produce violates the constitutional guarantee of justice under Article 21. This sets a critical precedent for herbal traders and cultivators whose lawful goods are wrongly classified and detained under the Indian Forest Act.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a victim of theft may be granted interim custody of seized property-such as cash or vehicles-when they establish prima facie ownership, without waiting for trial conclusion. This strengthens victim rights under criminal procedure by recognizing possession as a distinct interest deserving immediate protection, not merely a post-conviction remedy.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that vehicles seized under criminal proceedings cannot be retained indefinitely in police custody. Owners are entitled to reclaim their vehicles upon furnishing surety and a supurdginama, especially when prolonged custody risks rendering the vehicle unusable. The judgment underscores the balance between investigative needs and property rights under Section 451 CrPC.

Uttarakhand High Court directs release of a motorcycle seized under the NDPS Act, holding that prolonged detention without proof of instrumental use violates fairness and causes unjust depreciation. The ruling mandates interim release on bond or security, reinforcing the Supreme Court's Sunderbhai Desai precedent to protect owners from financial loss during trial.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that seized vehicles under NDPS Act cannot be kept at police stations indefinitely; must be released on bond with conditions to prevent depreciation.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that seized mobile phones not used in crime must be released on interim custody with conditions, affirming property rights under Article 21.