Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37475
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10168/2021
BETWEEN
NAGENDRA LAKSHMAN SINGH
S/O LAXMANSINGH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O NO 428
1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN
VADDARAPALYA, UTTARAHALLI
KENGERI MAIN RAOD
DR VISHNUVARDAN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 061.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF PUTTENAHALLI
POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY - 570 009
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV
ACMM, BENGALURU AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE LAPTOP OF
THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHICH HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO
PF.NO.19/2021 IN CR.NO.26/2021 OF PUTTENAHALLI P.S.,
BENGALURU.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
Property of the accused shall not be kept in police station unless it is required for investigation and it will cause damage.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF ORDER - LAPTOP SEIZED DURING INVESTIGATION - RELEASE OF LAPTOP FOR INTERIM CUSTODY - CONDITIONS
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of supplying N95 Masks and criminal breach of trust and cheating. During investigation, the police arrested the petitioner and others and seized the petitioner's laptop. The petitioner filed an application for release of the laptop for interim custody, which was rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order of the trial court. The court held that the laptop was not required for investigation and it would cause damage if kept in police custody. The court directed the Investigation Officer to release the laptop for interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
Issues: Whether the laptop seized during investigation should be released for interim custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Another vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39, wherein it is held that no property of the accused shall be kept in police station unless it is required for investigation and it will cause damage.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the Investigation Officer to release the laptop for interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
This criminal petition by the petitioner-accused No.2
is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order
dated 15.09.2021 passed by the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereby the trial
Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for
release of laptop which was seized and subjected to PF
No.19/2021 in Crime No.26/2021 of Puttenahalli Police
Station.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the police have
registered a case against the petitioner and others in crime
No.26/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) read with
3
Section 34 of IPC in respect of the offence of supplying
N95 Masks and criminal breach of trust and cheating.
During investigation, the police arrested the petitioner and
others and seized laptop of the petitioner in the PF above
mentioned. The petitioner filed an application under
Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of laptop for
interim custody which came to be rejected by the trial
Court on 15.09.2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner
himself is accused No.2 in the aforementioned crime and
that, laptop of the petitioner was seized. The petitioner is
already released on bail and he is said to be the owner of
the laptop. The petitioner has produced invoice for having
purchased the laptop in the year 2011 for Rs.48,490/-
which is inclusive of tax. There is no rival claimant to the
petitioner and also there is no dispute that the petitioner is
not the owner of the laptop. Therefore, keeping the laptop
4
in police custody will not serve any purpose and it is not
the part of present crime. The trial Court has committed
an error in dismissing the application for interim custody in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Another vs. State
of Gujarat reported in 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39, wherein it
is held that no property of the accused shall be kept in
police station unless it is required for investigation and it
will cause damage. When such being the case, the
petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the laptop.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on the
application filed by the petitioner for release of laptop
(Crime No.26/2021 of Puttenahalli Police Station) is hereby
set
aside.
The
said
application
is
allowed.
The
Investigation Officer is directed to release the laptop for
interim custody of the petitioner subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute indemnity
bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety
5
for
likesum
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Investigation Officer.
(ii)
The petitioner shall not destroy any
contents in the laptop.
(iii)
The police shall take printout of the
contents in the laptop in which any thing
necessary for the purpose of investigation.
(iv)
The petitioner shall not alienate the
laptop without permission of the Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cs
