The Seized Personal Belongings issue came before the Allahabad High Court in an NDPS case. The Court ruled that oral suspicion alone cannot justify withholding an accused person’s personal property.
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary passed the ruling in an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court held that authorities need concrete grounds before restricting an accused person’s use of personal property.
High Court Rejects Oral Suspicion
The investigating agency claimed that the seized valuables could represent proceeds from illegal drug sales.
However, the agency relied only on an oral apprehension. It did not provide sufficient material to support that claim.
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary found such a basis insufficient. The Court held that an accused cannot lose access to personal property merely because an agency raises a verbal suspicion.
Trial Court Failed to Assess Ownership Evidence
The High Court examined the trial court’s reasoning. It found that the lower court had not properly considered the ownership documents and relevant legal principles.
The Court therefore questioned the basis for retaining the seized articles.
Justice Chowdhary observed that oral apprehension from an investigating agency cannot, by itself, justify depriving a person of personal articles recovered during a search.
Police Recovered Gold Ornaments and Cash
The case arose from an NDPS prosecution registered in 2023. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Zone, Varanasi, handled the investigation.
The case involved Sections 8, 22, 25, 29, and 30 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Authorities arrested Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari on August 4, 2023. They conducted a personal search after his arrest.
The search produced ten personal items. These included a gold chain with a pendant, three gold rings, one gold bracelet, and ₹850 in cash.
Tiwari later asked the trial court to return his belongings. The Special Court rejected his request on July 3, 2025.
The agency claimed that the items represented proceeds from the narcotics trade. The trial court accepted that oral contention.
High Court Orders Fresh Consideration
The High Court found shortcomings in the trial court’s reasoning. It therefore allowed the application under Section 528 BNSS.
The Court quashed the July 3, 2025 order to the extent that it denied the return of the seized articles.
The Court also gave Tiwari permission to file a fresh application before the trial court.
He must submit the application within one month from the order date. He must also provide documentary proof of ownership for the gold ornaments and cash.
Court Protects Personal Property Rights
The ruling makes clear that Seized Personal Belongings cannot remain in government custody based only on an investigating agency’s oral suspicion.
The trial court must consider ownership evidence and relevant legal principles before deciding whether to release such property.
