Retention of seized cash and gold jewellery failed absent proof of nexus with the alleged offence.

Retention of seized cash and gold jewellery was held unjustified where no material nexus with the alleged offence was established. The appellant was not named as an accused in the ECIR or the Prosecution Complaint, and the record did not substantiate that the valuables were proceeds of crime. The earlier release of the seized documents and digital devices had already rendered that challenge infructuous, and the referral of the matter to the Income Tax Department did not justify continued retention by the respondent. The impugned order was set aside to that extent in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retention of the seized cash and gold jewellery was justified when the appellant was not named as an accused in the ECIR or the Prosecution Complaint and no nexus with the alleged offence was established.

Analysis: The documents and digital devices seized from the appellant had already been released, rendering that part of the challenge infructuous. As to the cash and gold jewellery, the record did not establish any material nexus between those valuables and the alleged offence. The appellant was not shown as an accused in the ECIR or in the Prosecution Complaint, and the materials relied upon did not substantiate the asserted link with the alleged criminal activity. Once the seized documents and digital devices were released, continued retention of the cash and jewellery could not be sustained on the footing that they were proceeds of crime. The fact that the matter had been referred to the Income Tax Department did not furnish a justification for retention by the respondent.

Conclusion: The retention of the cash and gold jewellery was not justified and the impugned order was set aside to that extent in favour of the appellant.

---