Evidence procured through irregular means is not automatically inadmissible if relevant and genuine. The investigative need to preserve potential criminal evidence, particularly regarding digital harassment, justifies the temporary retention of electronic devices by law enforcement, superseding the immediate right to property possession.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

The instant writ petition on the criminal side has been filed by the petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He is aggrieved by the purported illegal and unconstitutional seizure of his mobile phone by the police while being summoned by the police, in connection with a complaint lodged by respondent no. 6.

2. It is stated by the petitioner that on 12.02.2026, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein, namely Smti. Sneha Roy and Smti. Anjalina Morang, who were known to each other, lodged cross-complaints before the Dispur PS and Panbazar PS in Guwahati, making allegations upon one another. It is further stated that both these respondents are common friends of the present petitioner and that in their complaints, the petitioner was not named as an accused or suspect. Copies of the complaints have been annexed herewith.

3. In the complaint dated 12.02.2026, lodged by respondent No. 5, she stated that one Pratim Bharali has been blackmailing her in exchange of physical contact and when she threatened to go to police, he uploaded her AI-generated pictures on social media. She also alleged that the said Pratim Bharali threatened to upload more AI-generated improper videos on some pornographic sites and also threatened to throw acid on her face.

4. On 12.02.2026, the respondent No. 6 also lodged a complaint as mentioned above and in her complaint, she stated that an incident of unauthorized entry into her rented apartment took place by respondent No. 5 and her boyfriend at around 6.30 AM and that they forcefully and violently entered into her house.

5. The petitioner states that on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 6 as narrated above - the respondent No. 4 who is the OC, All Women Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, asked him to appear and that in reference to the same - even though no written notice was issued, as should have been done - he appeared before the police on 14.02.2026. It is further stated and contended that the police officials thereupon, acting in an arbitrary and high-handed manner took custody of his mobile phone (IPhone 17 Promax, EAN 195950638950, IMEI No. 357218971421059), without explaining any reasons and in violation of the procedural requirements stipulated by criminal procedure. The petitioner has contended that in exercise of his legal and constitutional rights, he refused to share the password of his mobile phone, and that demand for such password and the subsequent seizure of his property (mobile phone) is illegal and violative of constitutional provisions.

6. Mr. G. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner supporting his contentions narrated in the petition, submits that the exercise of seizure of the petitioner's mobile phone was an illegality and therefore, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction to get back his mobile phone. It appears that subsequently on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent no. 6, All Women PS case No. 4 of 2026 was registered by Panbazar police under section 78/79/351 (2)/296/329(3) BNS and one SI, S. Choudhury was endorsed to investigate the same.

7. Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Additional PP, submits that a police report was called for during the pendency of this petition, pursuant to which a detailed report has been submitted by the aforementioned SI, S. Choudhury, the IO of All Women PS case No. 4 of 2026. It is stated in the report that on 17.01.2026, the complainan