Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 895 OF 2023 BETWEEN:
1. RITHIN K.M., S/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.356 GPR GRAND LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-562106.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED UMMER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMBALAGODU P.S.
Digitally signed REPPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR by SHARANYA T HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560001 COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II A.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.246/2021 VIDE CR.NO.176/2020 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.451,457 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent.
2. Having heard the respective counsel, an application is filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim- custody of Apple company i-phone bearing mobile No.9008408999 which is seized by the Kumbalagodu Police Station in P.F.No.55/2021. It is contended that seized mobile is required for his day-to-day purpose and he is in need of said mobile and he is the only claimant of above seized mobile and is ready to obey any condition that may be imposed by this Court and also submits that even, he is ready to execute the bond, if mobile is released.
3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned HCGP that case is registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 302, 307, 212, 201 and 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC and if the mobile is released, there are chances of the petitioner selling the same and changing the color of the mobile. The Trial Court, having taken note of the fact that the seized mobile is involved in committing the crime, observed that if it is released, there are chances of selling the same. Hence, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition is filed before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in need of mobile phone and the petitioner has also produced bill of the Apple i-phone to show that the same is purchased by him and the same may be released and even investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed and there is no need of keeping the mobile in custody.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that if the i-
phone is released, there are chances of the petitioner selling the same and will change the colour of the mobile also.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, the police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. It is seen that the mobile was seized in 2021 and even if any allegation is made against the petitioner that the mobile is used for committing the crime, they cannot keep the mobile with them, unless they get the report from the FSL and even the prosecution can rely upon the FSL report and call details of the petitioner and no purpose would be served in keeping the Apple i-phone. Hence, the very apprehension of the State is that there are chances of the petitioner selling the same and he will change the colour, the said apprehension does not arise and this Court can impose condition not to sell and change the nature and colour of the Apple i-phone.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pas the following:
ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently, application filed for release of mobile is allowed.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to release the Apple i-phone with a condition to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a condition not to sell and change the color of the same.
