The court held that ownership proof, such as purchase bills, can justify the release of seized property under Section 451 Cr.P.C., even after initial dismissal by the trial court.

Judgment :

1. Petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C . (Section 438/442 BNSS) to assail the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C ., moved by the petitioner for releasing/handing over the two mobile phones i.e. (1) Vivo V25 PRO (12/256 GB) Blue & (2) I-Phone 15 Plus, 128 GB Blue on ‘supurdgi’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the mobile phones were seized along with the vehicle under Section 102 Cr.P.C . by the police for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act in connection with FIR No.02/2024 and the phones are under the custody of CBN, District Chittorgarh. Counsel further submits that charge-sheet in this case has already been presented and the mobile phones in question are unnecessarily lying in the police custody and the same may get damaged. Hence, it is prayed that the mobile phones in question may be released on ‘Supardginama’.

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

5. The learned trial court dismissed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C ., moved by the petitioner for releasing/handing over the two mobile phones i.e. (1) Vivo V25 PRO (12/256 GB) Blue & (2) I-Phone 15 Plus, 128 GB Blue on ‘supurdgi’ on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit any proof which shows that the said seized mobile phones belongs to the petitioner. But now, the petitioner has enclosed the bills of the mobile phones in question with the present revision petition which shows that the mobile phones belong to the petitioner and the charge-sheet in this case has already been presented, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this criminal revision petition.

6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the trial court is hereby quashed to the extent of refusing to release the mobile phones in question on ‘supurdgi’ and it is ordered that two mobile phones i.e. (1) Vivo V25 PRO (12/256 GB) Blue & (2) I-Phone 15 Plus, 128 GB Blue be released on ‘supardgi’ till the completion of the trial upon following conditions:-

(a) the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the mobile phones in question in the Court as and when required to do so.

(b) the petitioner shall get the mobile phones photographed and such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

(c) the personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his/her/their sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photograph of persons identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to sell mobile phones in question to anyone and not to make or allow any changes to be made so as to make unidentifiable.