Commentary on Section-497 BNSS: Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases – with corresponding Section 451 of Cr.P.C.

Bare Provisions

---

COMMENTARY

1. Introduction

Criminal cases also generate property disputes. Police seize vehicles, digital devices, laptops, mobile phone, tablets, vehicles loaded with goods, buildings, cash, gold, and documents during investigation. These items sit in police stations for years. They rot. They lose value. And the rightful owner suffers silently.

Section 497 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) addresses this problem directly. It replaces the old Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The BNSS came into force on 1st July 2024. Since then, Section 497 governs the custody and disposal of property during criminal proceedings.

However, the new provision does not merely replicate the old law. It goes significantly further. The legislature introduced mandatory timelines, photographic documentation, and videography requirements. These additions bring transparency to property handling in criminal cases.

In this article, I explain Section 497 BNSS in depth, compare it with the old Section 451 Cr.P.C., discuss the requirements, the procedure, and the case laws. Further, I have also provide a practical guide for drafting applications. This article/ commentary serves lawyers, litigants, students and anyone interested in criminal law.

2. Comparison with Section 451 Cr.P.C.

Let me start with the old law. Section 451 Cr.P.C. gave courts the power to order custody and disposal of property during trial. It was a single sub-section provision. The court could order sale or disposal if property was perishable. That was essentially it.

Now, Section 497 BNSS expands the scope considerably. It contains five sub-sections instead of one. Each sub-section adds a new layer of accountability. Therefore, the difference is not cosmetic. It is structural.

Key Differences at a Glance

First, the documentation mandate. 

Section 451 Cr.P.C. had no specific requirement for documentation. Section 497(2) BNSS now requires the Magistrate to prepare a detailed statement of property within 14 days. The State Government prescribes the form and manner. This was absent in the old law.

Second, the photographic and videographic evidence. 

Section 497(3) BNSS mandates that the Court must take photographs. If necessary, it must also record videography using a mobile phone or electronic media. Section 451 Cr.P.C. contained no such requirement. The Supreme Court had recommended this in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. The legislature has now made it statutory.

Third, the evidentiary value. 

Under Section 497(4), the statement, photograph, and videography serve as evidence. The old law was silent on this point. Courts had to rely on panchnamas and oral evidence. Now, the documentation itself carries evidentiary weight.

Fourth, the time-bound disposal. 

Section 497(5) directs the Court to order disposal, destruction, confiscation, or delivery of property within 30 days. This timeline begins after the statement and documentation are completed. Section 451 Cr.P.C. had no such deadline. Properties remained in police custody for years.

Fifth, digital property considerations. 

The new law recognises electronic media and digital devices. The old law did not contemplate digital storage at all. This is a welcome modernisation.

In essence: Section 451 Cr.P.C. was a general enabling provision. Section 497 BNSS is a detailed procedural framework. The shift is from discretion to structured accountability.

3. Requirements of Section 497

Section 497 imposes clear obligations on the Court. Let me break them down systematically.

3.1 When Does Section 497 Apply?

It applies when any property is produced before a Criminal Court or Magistrate. The Magistrate must be empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial. The production may happen during investigation, inquiry, or trial.

3.2 What Constitutes “Property”?

The Explanation to Section 497 defines “property” broadly. It includes property of any kind or document produced before the Court or in its custody. It also includes property connected to the offence. This means the weapon, the tools, the storage, the stolen goods, the vehicle, the cash — all fall within its scope.

3.3 The 14-Day Documentation Requirement

Within 14 days of production, the Court must prepare a property statement. This statement must contain a detailed description. The State Government prescribes the form. This requirement is mandatory, not discretionary.

3.4 The Photography and Videography Mandate

The Court must cause photographs to be taken. If the situation demands, videography on mobile phone or electronic media is also required. This preserves the condition of property at the time of production. Consequently, disputes about property condition are minimised.

3.5 Evidentiary Value of Documentation

The statement and photographs become evidence in the proceeding. This is a significant upgrade. The Court no longer depends solely on oral testimony. The documentation speaks for itself.

3.6 The 30-Day Disposal Mandate

After completing documentation, the Court must pass an order within 30 days. The order may direct disposal, destruction, confiscation, or delivery. This timeline prevents indefinite retention. It forces judicial action.

4. Steps to Release of Property

Knowing the law is one thing. Knowing the process is another. Here is a practical step-by-step guide to seeking release of property under Section 497 BNSS.

Step 1: Identify the Jurisdictional Court. 

The application must go before the Criminal Court or Magistrate before whom the property was produced. Do not approach the High Court directly. The Supreme Court has been clear on this point.

Step 2: Establish Your Right. 

You must show your connection to the property. Are you the registered owner? The rightful possessor? The complainant from whom property was stolen? Gather documents that prove your claim. These include registration certificates, purchase receipts, title deeds etc.

Step 3: File the Application. 

Draft an application under Section 497 BNSS (formerly Section 451 Cr.P.C.). State your claim clearly. Attach supporting documents. I provide a drafting guide later in this article.

Step 4: Serve Notice to Prosecution. 

The Court will issue notice to the prosecution. The Investigating Officer will file a report. The prosecution may support or oppose the release. Both sides get a hearing.

Step 5: Court Records Evidence. 

The Court will examine the material. It will check the property statement and photographs prepared under Section 497(2) and (3). It may record additional evidence if needed.

Step 6: Court Passes Order with Conditions. 

If the Court is satisfied, it will release the property. Typically, the Court imposes conditions. These include executing an indemnity bond, furnishing surety, and agreeing to produce the property when required.

Step 7: Take Custody. 

After fulfilling the conditions, you take custody of the property. You sign the necessary undertakings. The Court records the handover. You are now responsible for the property’s safekeeping.

Caution: Do not Approach High Court Directly  

Never approach the High Court under Article 226 directly without first exhausting the remedy under Section 497 BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held this to be an improper course of action. See: Para -6 and 16 of Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 285.

5. Landmark Supreme Court Case Laws on Jurisprudence of Section 497

The jurisprudence of property disposal in criminal cases rests on several foundational Supreme Court decisions. Although these cases were decided under Section 451 Cr.P.C., they remain binding precedent under Section 497 BNSS. Let me discuss the most important ones.

5.1 Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358

This is the earliest foundational decision. The Supreme Court held that property seized by police must not remain in police custody longer than absolutely necessary. The Court established the core principle: property should reach its rightful owner as soon as reasonably possible. This ratio has been cited in nearly every subsequent case.

5.2 Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283

This is the most cited decision on property disposal. The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for Magistrates. The Court directed that powers under Section 451 must be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. Seized articles must not remain at police stations for more than 15 days to one month.

The Court identified four purposes served by prompt disposal. First, the owner does not suffer from the property remaining unused. Second, courts and police do not bear the burden of safe custody. Third, proper panchnamas can replace physical production. Fourth, prompt action prevents tampering.

Additionally, the Court directed that photographs and panchnamas should be prepared. Bonds and security should be taken. The Registry of the concerned High Court must supervise compliance. This decision effectively created the framework that the BNSS later codified into law.

5.3 General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768

This case took the Sunderbhai principles forward. The Supreme Court addressed the problem of seized vehicles turning into junk at police stations. The Court issued further directions for compliance with Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. It placed responsibility on the Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police to monitor property disposal at police stations.

The Court also directed that insured vehicles should be released to their rightful owners through a streamlined mechanism involving the Insurance Information Bureau. This decision remains highly relevant for vehicle release applications.

6. SC Case Laws on Release of Property

Several Supreme Court decisions have specifically ordered or upheld the release of property. These cases illustrate the principles in action.

6.1 Sainaba v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784

The Supreme Court allowed the release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act. The registered owner had not participated in the offence. The Court held that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods serves no purpose. It directed Magistrates to exercise powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to release vehicles on appropriate conditions. This decision is important because it confirms that even in NDPS cases, vehicle release is permissible.

Also Read Shahrukh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh; FullJudgment to understand the concept.

6.2 Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40

The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no specific bar under the NDPS Act against interim release of seized vehicles. Prolonged retention causes wastage. It serves no practical purpose. Courts must exercise discretion to release vehicles on reasonable terms. This decision strengthened the jurisprudence of release even in serious offences.

6.3 Manipal Finance Corp. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa, AIR 2001 SC 3721

In this case the Supreme Court considered the interim custody of a vehicle seized in a dispute arising from a hire-purchase agreement. The financier had repossessed the vehicle after the hirer defaulted on instalments, whereupon the hirer lodged a false complaint of theft, vehicle recovered by police and obtained custody of the vehicle through a Magistrate’s order. The Supreme Court accepted that the financier had taken possession in accordance with the contractual right of re-entry. It held that that the learned Magistrate was not right in passing the impugned order and thereby giving relief to a party which had invoked jurisdiction on false accusations. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court, and directed restoration of the vehicle to the financier, clarifying that the order would not prejudice the parties’ civil rights.

7. Case Laws Where Property Release Was Refused

Release of property is not automatic. Courts have refused release in several situations. Understanding these cases helps you anticipate potential objections.

7.1 Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1129

This is a very recent and significant Supreme Court decision. The Court set aside a Gujarat High Court order that had permitted the release of Rs. 50,00,000 in seized cash to a witness. The Supreme Court held that the release was “unjustified and premature.” Ownership of the money was disputed. It was a matter of evidence to be decided at trial. Therefore, releasing the cash before trial would prejudice the case.

This decision teaches an important lesson. When ownership of seized property is contested, premature release is not appropriate. The Court must wait for the trial to determine rightful ownership.

7.2 Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, 2024

The appellant’s vehicle was seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case. Instead of approaching the Magistrate under Section 451 Cr.P.C., the appellant went directly to the High Court under Article 226. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the proper remedy is before the jurisdictional Magistrate, not the High Court. Bypassing the statutory remedy is not permissible.

7.3 Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379

In NDPS cases, the Supreme Court laid down specific procedures for disposal of seized narcotic substances. The Court mandated that seized drugs must be disposed of in accordance with strict protocols. Random release or casual handling was not permitted. While this case deals with narcotics specifically, it establishes that where special laws impose specific safeguards, courts cannot bypass them using general powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. or Section 497 BNSS.

7.4 When Confiscation Proceedings Are Pending

Courts have also refused release where confiscation proceedings under special statutes like the Excise Act or Forest Act are pending. In such cases, the Magistrate may not have jurisdiction. The special statute governs the disposal process.

8. Limitations and Stage of Release

Section 497 BNSS is powerful. But it has limitations. Let me outline the key ones.

8.1 Interim Custody Only — Not Title Determination

A crucial point to remember: Section 497 deals with custody, not title. The Magistrate does not decide who owns the property. That is a question for the civil court or for the final order under Section 498 BNSS (corresponding to Section 452 Cr.P.C.). Therefore, the order under Section 497 is always provisional.

8.2 No Release Without Conditions

Courts invariably impose conditions before releasing property. These include indemnity bonds, sureties, photo documentation, and undertakings to produce property on demand. If you cannot fulfil these conditions, the Court may decline release.

8.3 Special Statutes May Override

Where a special statute governs seizure and confiscation, Section 497 may not apply directly. For instance, the Indian Forest Act (Section 52-D), the NDPS Act, or the Excise Act may impose their own disposal procedures. In such cases, the special law prevails over the general BNSS provision.

8.4 Stage of Release

Property can be released at two stages. First, during the pendency of investigation, inquiry, or trial — this is the domain of Section 497 BNSS. Second, at the conclusion of the trial — this falls under Section 498 BNSS (old Section 452 Cr.P.C.).

During the first stage, the Court exercises discretion. It considers the nature of property, the needs of investigation, and the interests of justice. At the second stage, the Court determines final entitlement based on the trial outcome.

8.5 Right of Revision/ Appeal

Section 500 BNSS (corresponding to Section 453 Cr.P.C.) provides for an appeal against orders under Section 498 or Section 499. If the Court refuses release, aggrieved parties have a remedy. They can also approach the Sessions Court in revision. The High Court’s powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 Cr.P.C.) remain available as a last resort.

9. Application for Property Release

A well-drafted application makes a difference. Download here is a model format you can adapt to your case. I have kept it simple and practical.

IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED [CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE / JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS / METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE] AT [PLACE], DISTRICT [NAME] FIR No. _________ / 20___ Police Station: ___________ Under Sections: ___________ of BNS / [Other Act] IN THE MATTER OF: State ………………………………………….. Prosecution Versus [Name of Accused] ………………………… Accused APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 497 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 (BNSS) [Corresponding to Section 451 of Cr.P.C., 1973] FOR RELEASE OF SEIZED PROPERTY ON INTERIM CUSTODY RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the applicant is the [registered owner / lawful possessor / complainant] of [describe property — e.g., Motor Vehicle / Cash / Gold Ornaments / Mobile Phone, etc.] bearing [registration no. / description / weight / identifying details]. 2. That the said property was seized by the police on [date] in connection with FIR No. _____ registered at Police Station _____. 3. That the said property is presently lying in the custody of [police station / court malkhana] and is deteriorating in condition / losing value / not being put to use. 4. That the applicant has a legitimate and bona fide claim over the said property, as evidenced by [list documents: Registration Certificate / Purchase Invoice / Title Documents / Bank Statements, etc.]. 5. That the chargesheet has been filed / investigation is complete / the purpose for which the property was seized has been fulfilled. The photographs and detailed panchnama have already been prepared. 6. That keeping the said property in police custody serves no useful purpose. Its continued detention causes prejudice to the applicant. 7. That the applicant undertakes to: (a) Execute an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court; (b) Furnish surety as directed; (c) Produce the property before this Hon’ble Court as and when required; (d) Not alienate, mortgage, or tamper with the property in any manner; (e) Cooperate with the investigation and trial. 8. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. (now Section 497 BNSS) should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. Seized articles should not remain at police stations for more than 15 days to one month. PRAYER: In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (a) Direct the release of the said [property description] to the applicant on interim custody upon such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit; (b) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interests of justice. APPLICANT [Name] [Address] [Date] Through Counsel: [Advocate Name] [Enrollment No.]

Practical Tips for Drafting: Always attach certified copies of ownership documents. Mention relevant Supreme Court precedents. Keep the language clear and concise. Highlight that the chargesheet has been filed, if applicable. The stronger your documentary proof of ownership, the higher your chances of success.

10. Important Supreme Court Cases

Here is a ready-reference list of the ten most important Supreme Court decisions on custody and disposal of property under Section 451 Cr.P.C. / Section 497 BNSS:

1. Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, AIR 1977 SC 1749 — Foundational decision on prompt return of seized property.
2. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 — Comprehensive guidelines for Magistrates on property disposal under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
3. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (II), (2002) — Further clarifications on vehicle release and photographs as evidence.
4. General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 354 — Directions on compliance with MV Act provisions regarding seized vehicles.
5. General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768 — Further directions on vehicle disposal and monitoring by senior police officers.
6. Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 — Mandatory procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
7. Manipal Finance Corp. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa, AIR 2001 SC 3721 — Financier’s right to release of vehicle under hire purchase agreement.
8. Sainaba v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784 — Release of vehicle permitted in NDPS cases; no statutory bar on interim custody.
9. Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1129 — Release of seized cash held “unjustified and premature” when ownership is disputed.
10. Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40 — Prolonged retention of vehicles in police custody serves no practical purpose; release on conditions is permissible.

11. Conclusion

Section 497 BNSS marks a significant improvement over Section 451 Cr.P.C. The old law was brief and discretionary. The new law is detailed and time-bound. It forces courts to act within 14 days for documentation and 30 days for disposal. It mandates photographic and videographic evidence. And it gives that documentation evidentiary value.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on this subject remains the guiding light. From Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (1977) to Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh (2025), the consistent message is clear. Seized property must not rot in police stations. It must be handled promptly, documented carefully, and returned to the rightful owner at the earliest opportunity.

At the same time, courts must exercise caution. Property release is not automatic. Ownership disputes require adjudication. Special statutes may impose their own procedures. And conditions must be imposed to protect the interests of justice.

For practitioners, the takeaway is practical. File your application under Section 497 BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Establish your claim with documents. Cite the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai guidelines. Offer to fulfil conditions. Be prepared for the prosecution’s objections.

The law has improved. The timelines have tightened. The documentation is now mandatory. What remains is the will to enforce these provisions diligently. And that responsibility lies with us — the lawyers, the Magistrates, and the courts of this country.

---

FAQ – Frequently Asked Question on Release of Property u/S 497 BNSS

1. What is Section 497 of the BNSS?

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a criminal court to order custody, disposal, destruction, confiscation, or delivery of property produced during investigation, inquiry, or trial. It replaces Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

2. What is the equivalent provision of Section 451 CrPC in the BNSS?

The equivalent provision of Section 451 CrPC under the new criminal procedure law is Section 497 BNSS. It governs the custody and disposal of property pending investigation or trial and introduces documentation and time-bound procedural safeguards.

---

3. What powers does a Magistrate have under Section 497 BNSS?

A Magistrate may order interim custody, sale, destruction, confiscation, or delivery of seized property produced before the court during investigation or trial. The court may also impose conditions such as bonds or undertakings for safeguarding the property.

---

4. What is considered “property” under Section 497 BNSS?

Under Section 497 BNSS, property includes any object or document produced before the court or kept in its custody, as well as property connected with an offence or used in committing an offence, including vehicles, cash, digital devices, and documents.

---

5. What is the 14-day requirement under Section 497 BNSS?

Section 497 requires the Magistrate to prepare a detailed statement describing the seized property within 14 days of its production before the court. The statement must follow the format prescribed by the State Government.

---

6. Why does Section 497 BNSS require photographs or videography of seized property?

Section 497 mandates photography and videography of seized property so that its condition and identity are documented. These records can later be used as evidence during trial, reducing the need to physically retain the property in court custody.

---

7. Within how many days must the court decide disposal of property under Section 497 BNSS?

After completing the documentation and photography process, the court must order disposal, destruction, confiscation, or delivery of the property within 30 days. This prevents prolonged storage of seized property in police custody.

---

8. Can a seized vehicle be released under Section 497 BNSS?

Yes. Courts frequently release seized vehicles on interim custody if the applicant proves ownership and agrees to conditions such as bonds and producing the vehicle when required. The Supreme Court encouraged this practice in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002).

---

9. Can someone approach the High Court directly for release of seized property?

Generally, no. The applicant must first approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 497 BNSS. Courts discourage bypassing the statutory remedy and directly invoking writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist.

---

10. Does Section 497 BNSS determine ownership of seized property?

No. Section 497 BNSS deals only with interim custody of property during investigation or trial. Final determination of ownership usually occurs at the conclusion of the case under Section 498 BNSS (earlier Section 452 CrPC).

---

---