Madras High Court Orders Release of Seized Mobile Phone in NDPS Case: Trial Courts Must Use BNSS Sections 497 and 503 Promptly and Not Let Seized Property Decay

The owner of a Vivo mobile phone seized in Cr. No. 199 of 2026 (offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act) sought its release; the Principal Special Court under the EC and NDPS Act, Chennai refused on 17.09.2026 (Paras 1–2). Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, and on Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the High Court held that the Trial Court had not used its power under Section 497 judiciously and that keeping an undisputedly owned article in court custody only lets it decay (Paras 10–15). The impugned order was set aside and release directed on a Rs.2,000/- bank guarantee and bond to produce the phone (Paras 16–18).

Key Proposition: Powers under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS to order custody, disposal or delivery of seized property must be exercised judiciously and without delay; where ownership of a seized article is undisputed, keeping it in court custody to deteriorate serves no purpose and release on bond and security should be ordered.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 497, 503 – Release of seized mobile phone in NDPS case – Ownership undisputed – Trial Court refused release – Held, power must be used judiciously and without delay; order set aside. (Paras 13–17)
• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 (paras 17, 21) – Seized articles should not remain at police stations or in court for long; release on bond and security – Applied. (Paras 10, 15–16)
• Conditions of release – Bank guarantee of Rs.2,000/-, bond to produce property when needed and not to alter it. (Para 18)

Background / Synopsis :

• The revision petitioner owns a Vivo T5 Pro 5G mobile phone (Cosmic Black, 128 GB), seized by the Kotturpuram police in Cr. No. 199 of 2026 for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). (Para 2)
• His application for release was dismissed on 17.09.2026 by the Principal Special Court under the EC and NDPS Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No. 5141 of 2026; this revision challenges that order. (Paras 1–2)
• Whether the petitioner is himself an accused in Cr. No. 199 of 2026 and the reasons the Trial Court gave for refusal: Not stated in judgment.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the Special Court was right in refusing to release the seized mobile phone to its admitted owner pending the case, in light of Sections 497 and 503 BNSS. (Paras 4–7, 13–16)

Submissions Of Parties :
Revision Petitioner:

• He is the undisputed owner; the phone will become junk in court custody; relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, and Sections 497 and 503 BNSS; he is ready to comply with any conditions. (Paras 4–7)

Respondent (State):

• The property was involved in offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) NDPS Act and was correctly seized; the Trial Court rightly refused release. (Para 8)

Court's Observations & Analysis :
Re: Issue – Release of the seized phone

• The Court quoted paras 17 and 21 of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (seized articles should not be kept at the police station for long; the Magistrate should act promptly, in any case within fifteen days to one month) and the Allahabad High Court’s views (Nand v. State of U.P.; Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.; Kamaljeet Singh v. State of U.P.) that pending confiscation proceedings do not bar release. (Paras 10–12)
• The Trial Court did not use Section 497 BNSS properly and widely; the power must be exercised judiciously and without delay so that the litigant does not suffer, and mere custody in court serves no purpose and results in damage. (Para 13)
• The procedure under Section 503 BNSS must also be followed promptly so that property is released to the person entitled; keeping it in court custody gives “mental and financial torture” to the owner contrary to law and natural justice. (Para 14)
• As the petitioner is indisputably the owner and neither the State nor anyone else claims the phone, no useful purpose is served by keeping it, and the impugned order is unsustainable. (Paras 15–16)

Notable Observations:

• “merely keeping the article in the custody of the Trial Court will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property.” (Para 13)

Decision & Directions :

• Criminal Revision Case allowed; the order dated 17.09.2026 in Crl.M.P. No. 5141 of 2026 of the Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai is set aside. (Para 17)
• The Special Court shall release the mobile phone forthwith to the revision petitioner on the following conditions. (Para 18)

1. He shall give a bank guarantee of Rs.2,000/- before the Special Court.
2. He shall file a bond to produce the property as and when needed by the court.
3. He shall not make any change or variation in the property.

• Registry to send a copy of the order to the Special Court within one week. No order as to costs. Separate Opinions: None. (Paras 18–19)

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 497 (custody and disposal of property pending trial; statement, photograph/videography and disposal within thirty days) ↔ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 451 (as in Sunderbhai); Section 503 (procedure on police seizure reported to Magistrate; delivery to person entitled) ↔ CrPC Section 457.
• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1) – Offences in Cr. No. 199 of 2026 (particulars not set out in the judgment).
• Doctrines: interim custody (superdari) of seized property; avoidance of deterioration of articles in custody; pendency of confiscation or trial not a bar to release.
• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 – Followed.
• Nand v. State of U.P., 1996 Law Suit (All) 423; Jai Prakash v. State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744; Kamaljeet Singh v. State of U.P., 1986 U.P. Cri. Ruling 50 (All) – Referred to.