On 1 August 2026 the Supreme Court of India observed that the power conferred upon courts to order an interim release of material seized during investigation under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is not an adjudication of ownership or title.
The Court emphasized that the exercise of this power requires only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession of the seized item.
In its observation the Court stated, “The exercise of this power requires the Court to make only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession, having regard to the nature of…”.
This statement makes clear that the judicial inquiry at the interim stage is confined to determining, on a preliminary basis, which party appears to have a stronger claim to immediate possession, without delving into the substantive question of title.
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.
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.
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.