Sandeep Lal vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.
Sandeep Lal – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Crl.Mc No. 126 Of 2026
Decided On : 08-07-2026

Important Points

Conditioning the release of seized electronic evidence upon its deletion constitutes an impediment to a fair trial, as the accused is entitled to preserve material evidence necessary for their defense, provided that data privacy is safeguarded by strict restrictions rather than total destruction of the records.

Subject

Criminal Law - Procedural Law and Criminal Evidence

Act Referred

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA : S.115(2), S.126(2), S.132, S.296(b), S.3(5), S.74, S.75(2)
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.497

Headnote

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 497 - Interim custody of property - Accused seeking return of seized mobile phone - Condition imposed by lower court to delete electronic contents - Whether valid. (Paras 4, 6)

(B) Evidence - Preservation of - Fair trial - Accused is entitled to rely on device contents as material evidence in support of his defence - Directing deletion of potential evidence without preservation as court record prejudices the accused. (Paras 5, 7)

(C) Privacy rights - Privacy needs of the complainant must be balanced against the right of the accused to a fair trial - Such safeguards are achieved through restrictive conditions against dissemination rather than the destruction of data. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing criminal charges, moved an application seeking interim custody of his mobile phone which had been seized by law enforcement. The lower court granted custody but imposed a condition requiring the deletion of specific electronic files from the device to prevent potential misuse. The petitioner challenged this condition, contending that the contents of the phone constitute material evidence necessary for his defense.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the deletion of potential evidence would severely prejudice the accused in his defense. It determined that privacy concerns can be adequately protected by imposing conditions against the publication or circulation of such data, without necessitating the destruction of the evidence itself.

Issues: Whether the condition imposed by the lower court requiring the deletion of electronic data from a seized device as a prerequisite for interim custody is legally sustainable, and whether it violates the right to a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi: An order for the destruction of electronic evidence during the pendency of a case is impermissible if such evidence is essential for the defense. Judicial discretion must favor the preservation of material evidence to ensure a fair trial, provided that adequate judicial safeguards are instituted to protect individual privacy from unauthorized dissemination.

Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; condition for deletion set aside.

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Sri.K.Siju, Smt.Anjana Kannath, Smt.Safna P.S., Shri.Gautham Siju

Table of Content
1. procedural context for interim custody of personal property in criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contestation of onerous conditions imposed by lower courts on seized property release. (Para 4 , 5)
3. balancing the accused's right to preservation of evidence with the victim's privacy interests. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

This petition has been filed by the 1st accused in Crime No. 1722 of 2025 of Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam City, registered for offences punishable under Sections 74 , 75(2), 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), and 132 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Kollam, in CMP No. 3726 of 2025.

2. The allegation in the said case registered against the petitioner is as follows:

On 13.10.2025 at about 3.00 p.m., while the de facto complainant, who is working as the Deputy Manager of the State Bank of India, along with her collegue approached the petitioner in his house, to discuss about the arrears of loan availed by him from the said bank, the petitioner and his friend used filthy language against the de facto complainant and physically assaulted her and thereby obstructed her from discharging her official duty. Moreover, it is alleged that when the de facto complainant entered an autorickshaw, the petitioner intercepted the said vehicle, fisted her , assaulted her and thereby outraged her modesty.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely baseless and it was the de facto complainant and her colleague who misbehaved towards him. It is contended that the crime against the petitioner has been registered suppressing the real matters that transpired. According to the learned counsel, during the course of the investigation, the mobile phone used by the petitioner at the relevant time was seized by the investigating officer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking interim custody of the said mobile phone. The learned Magistrate allowed the application, however, while granting interim custody, certain conditions were imposed which, according to the counsel, are onerous and are likely to prejudice the defence proposed to be raised by the petitioner during the trial. Moreover, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order, wherein it is recorded as follows by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate:

“ I am prima facie satisfied that the petitioner is real owner of the mobile phone and is entitled to get the interim possession of mobile phone which were seized by Kottiyam police station in Cr. No.1722/2025. No one has come up seeking the custody of the said article so far. If it remains unused it will be destroyed and petitioner will be put in great hardship. Considering the apprehension of the SHO that the mobile contains message relating to a women and if it spreads in social media it will cause mental agony to the defacto complainant hence the mobile phone is released on condition of that to delete any such images in the mobile phone in the presence of investigating officer and with the assistance of Cyber experts without the scope of retrieving it. Moreover the SHO also reported that the images were already copied by them to pendrive. The petitioner shall intimate the investigating officer prior to the release for taking steps.

1. The mobile phones are released to the interim custody of the petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent surety for the like sum.

2. Petitioner shall undertake to produce the said mobile phone as and when directed by the court for investigation or trial purpose in the same condition as it is now.

3. The peti