Section 452 CrPC: SC Says Seized Property Must Not Be Retained Longer Than Necessary

The Supreme Court has held that a person acquitted in a criminal case cannot be denied the return of property seized during the investigation merely because an appeal against the acquittal is pending. It said courts must independently examine whether there are any grounds to continue retaining the seized property, rather than keeping it in custody indefinitely on account of the pending appeal.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan and Aparesh Kumar Singh made the observation while directing the Maharashtra government to return a licensed revolver seized from a man who had been acquitted in an attempt to murder case more than 13 years ago.

Court held that even where an appeal against acquittal is pending, an application seeking return of seized property must be considered on its own merits.

Court made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus and directing the release of his licensed revolver.

Yunus, who worked as a private bodyguard, had sought the release and return of his revolver, which was seized in connection with an FIR registered in 2012 at Bazar Peth Police Station in Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

He was an accused in an attempt to murder case. The sessions court, by its judgment dated March 11, 2013, acquitted all eight accused of the charges. It further directed that the articles seized from the accused be returned after expiry of the appeal period.

Yunus subsequently filed an application in 2014 under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 498 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], seeking return of the revolver. He submitted that he was unable to secure employment without the weapon and expressed willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the court for its release.

However, the additional sessions judge, by an order dated February 22, 2015, rejected his application, citing the pendency of an appeal against the acquittal.

Yunus then approached the Bombay High Court. The high court directed that his application be kept along with the appeals against the acquittal judgment. Both the application and the appeals remained pending since 2014.

The Supreme Court found that both the courts below had failed to examine Yunus's application on its own merits and had instead allowed the pendency of the appeals to prevent its adjudication.

Court noted that the revolver had been seized in 2012 and Yunus was acquitted in 2013. Despite the passage of more than a decade since his acquittal, the revolver continued to remain in the custody of the authorities.

Referring to Section 452 CrPC (Section 498 BNSS), the Bench said the provision empowers a criminal court to pass appropriate orders regarding disposal of property at the conclusion of an inquiry or trial. The court must determine whether the property should be returned or retained, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

"The underlying principle of the provision, as recognized by this court in several decisions, is that any seized property ought not to remain in the custody of the police or the court for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary," the Bench said.

In the present case, the petitioner had been acquitted of all charges and there was no material indicating any other reason warranting continued retention of the revolver.

"In these circumstances, the mere pendency of appeals against acquittal cannot by itself justify withholding the return of the revolver, without examining the petitioner’s claim on its merits," the Bench held.

Court also took note of the impact of the prolonged retention of the revolver on Yunus's livelihood. As he was employed in the private security sector, possession of the revolver was necessary for him to secure employment.

Court further noted that the record showed Yunus was responsible for maintaining a family of six members and had been deprived of his revolver since 2012.

"We are of the considered view that the continued retention of the revolver is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mere pendency of appeal against acquittal, cannot by itself, justify its continued retention," the Bench said.

Court directed the Maharashtra government to ensure that custody of the revolver was handed over to Yunus within eight weeks.

It also disposed of his pending application before the high court and clarified that its order would not affect the merits of the pending appeal.

Case Title: Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus Vs State of Maharashtra 

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan and Aparesh Kumar Singh

Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026