Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, eight individuals accused in Crime No.95/2019 registered by Chikkamagaluru Town Police for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 21 and 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance 2019, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chikkamagaluru. The trial court had rejected their application under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC seeking interim custody of vehicles seized during investigation. The petitioners, represented by Sri P.P. Hegde, argued that the vehicles were lying idle and deteriorating, and that they were entitled to their release on suitable conditions. The State, represented by Sri K.S. Abhijith, opposed the petition, contending that the offences involved unregulated deposit schemes and that releasing the vehicles would hamper investigation. The High Court, presided over by Justice Krishna S. Dixit, examined the scope of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, which empower courts to order interim custody of property pending trial. The court noted that the property seized should be kept in custodia legis and not be allowed to perish. The seriousness of the alleged offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance 2019 did not, by itself, disentitle the accused to interim custody. The court emphasized that the trial court had not assigned valid reasons for rejecting the application and that the vehicles could be released on stringent conditions, including furnishing of bonds and undertaking not to alienate or tamper with the property. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to release the vehicles to the petitioners on such conditions as it deems fit, including execution of personal bonds and furnishing of security. The court also directed that the petitioners shall not transfer or alienate the vehicles until the conclusion of the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Property - Sections 451, 457 CrPC - Seized vehicles - Petitioners sought release of vehicles seized in Crime No.95/2019 - Trial court rejected application citing seriousness of offences under Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance 2019 - High Court held that mere registration of case under special statute does not disentitle accused to interim custody; property must be kept in custodia legis and released on suitable conditions to prevent deterioration - Held that trial court's order was unsustainable and set aside (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for interim custody of vehicles seized in connection with offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance 2019, IPC, and IT Act.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 05.10.2019 set aside. Trial court directed to release the vehicles to the petitioners on such conditions as it deems fit, including execution of personal bonds and furnishing of security. Petitioners shall not transfer or alienate the vehicles until conclusion of trial.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized property
- Section 451 CrPC
- Section 457 CrPC
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance 2019
- custodia legis
- release of vehicles on conditions
