Also Read - CJI Surya Kant Refuses Urgent Hearing on Student Protests and Police Action

The Bench further clarified that such an interim order does not prejudice the rights of any party to later assert or contest ownership in appropriate proceedings.

By limiting the scope of the inquiry to a prima facie assessment of entitlement to possession, the Court sought to prevent the interim release order from being mistaken for a final determination of proprietary rights.

Also Read - Right to Walk to Parliament: The Delhi Protest March Explained

The observation underscores that the court’s role at this stage is to ensure that the seized material is not kept in custody unnecessarily while also safeguarding the interests of the party who, on the face of the record, appears to be entitled to its possession.

The clarification is intended to guide lower courts in exercising their discretion under Sections 451/457 CrPC/BNSS, reminding them that the order is provisional and based solely on a preliminary view of possession.

Also Read - Delhi Police Opposes PIL Alleging Surveillance of Protesters at Jantar Mantar

Consequently, any party aggrieved by an interim release order may still pursue a full trial or other suitable remedy to establish title, as the interim order does not conclude the matter of ownership.

The Supreme Court’s remarks serve to delineate the boundary between interim custodial relief and substantive adjudication, reinforcing that the former is a procedural measure aimed at preserving the status quo pending a final decision on title.

Also Read - Delhi High Court Upholds Detention of EWS Student After Academic Failure