Bharat Kumar Morwani vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the application, setting aside the orders of the lower courts. The Court held that while the discrepancy between the licensed quantity and the seized quantity is relevant, it cannot justify the indefinite retention of the seized fireworks in police custody, leading to their deterioration. The primary purpose of an interim custody order is the proper preservation of property pending proceedings. The Court emphasized the Supreme Court's directive in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat that seized articles should not be retained unnecessarily in police custody, especially when they are perishable or combustible. The Court noted that the identity and nature of the fireworks could be preserved through detailed inventory, photographs, and sample collection. The release was made subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a bond and surety equivalent to the market value, an undertaking not to alienate or destroy the property, and maintaining the articles in a safe and legally permissible place. The Court also acknowledged its prior prima facie observations regarding the applicability of the Explosives Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Kumar Morwani, challenged the rejection of his application for interim custody of seized fireworks. On January 7, 2026, 151 cartons of fireworks were seized from a vehicle in District Sehore. The petitioner was alleged to have loaded these fireworks in Kolkata for transport to Gujarat. Proceedings were initiated under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act. The petitioner's application for interim custody was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and subsequently by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision. The petitioner argued that the fireworks were commercial goods transported with valid tax invoices and e-way bills, and he possessed the necessary licenses. He also contended that the seized fireworks were deteriorating in police custody. The State opposed the release, citing a discrepancy between the seized quantity (approx. 5,388 kg) and the quantity authorized by the petitioner's license (350 kg).

Key Issues

1. Whether the courts below erred in refusing interim custody of seized fireworks, considering their perishable nature and the potential for deterioration in police custody, despite the petitioner possessing commercial documentation and licenses? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and principles of property custody). Petitioner's Arguments: - The seized fireworks are commercial goods transported with valid tax invoices and e-way bills. - The petitioner is a licensed dealer with an Explosives Licence in Form LE-5. - The High Court, in a prior anticipatory bail application, noted prima facie legal infirmities in the prosecution case, suggesting the matter falls under the Explosives Act, not the Explosive Substances Act. - The seized fireworks are deteriorating in police custody and require specialized handling, as per Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. - The petitioner is willing to furnish adequate security and an undertaking for production of the property. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The seized quantity of approximately 5,388 kilograms of fireworks substantially exceeds the quantity authorized by the petitioner's license (350 kilograms). - Releasing the entire consignment may adversely affect the prosecution and eventual proceedings.