DATED

06.08.2021,

MADE

IN

SPL.C.C.NO.212/2021

(CR.NO.109/2020) BY THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S. CASES,

BENGALURU (CCH-33) IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE

PETITIONER U/S 451 R/W 457 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THE

APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 451 R/W 457 OF

CR.P.C. AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE TWO MOBILE PHONES i.e.,

APPLE COMPANY I PHONE 11, IMEI NO.356567108289313 ALONG

WITH SIM NO.9448055978 AND APPLE COMPANY I PHONE 11, IMEI

NO.352991114865375 ALONG WITH SIM CARD NO.7349537545 TO

THE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER.

Digitally signed

by NANDINI B

G

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for

setting aside the order of rejection of application filed by

this petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 of

Cr.P.C. in Spl.Case No.212/2021 in respect of Crime

No.109/2020 registered by Cottonpete Police (CCB-OCW

Squad).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Special

Counsel for respondent-State.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is said

to be arraigned as accused No.12 and charge sheeted for

the offenses punishable under Sections 21, 21(c), 27A,

27(b) and 29 of Necrotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) and during

the course of investigation, the Police said to have seized

his mobile i.e., Apple iphone-11 with sim card and the

same is subjected to PF No.119/2021 and the petitioner

- 3 -

moved an application for release of the mobile phone

which came to be rejected by the Special Court on

06.08.2021 which is under challenge.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

investigation is complete and charge sheet has already

been filed long back. The other properties seized from

other accused persons were released and the trial Court,

only on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to

release the properties under NDPS Act has refused to

release the mobile phone of the petitioner which is not

correct. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned Special Counsel Sri.G.Veeranna

Tigadi has filed statement of objections contending that

the offense alleged is a serious one, punishable under

NDPS Act upto 20 years. The mobile was used by the

accused for the purpose of committing the offence and he

had evaded arrest for a period of 135 days from the date

of registration of FIR and he has erased the data in the

mobile phone. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

- 4 -

6.

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, of

course, this petitioner was arraigned as accused No.12 and

he was arrested subsequently after 135 days of registering

FIR. Admittedly, the Police seized apple iphone belonging

to this petition vide Sim Card No.7349537545 with IMEI

No.352991114865375 and subjected to PF No.119/2021.

The trial Court while dismissing the application held that

the Court has no jurisdiction to release any property or

vehicle under NDPS Act. In this connection, the Division

Bench of this Court has already held that the trial Court

has power to release the properties under NDPS Act.

7.

The only question that arises for this Court is

whether if the mobile phone is released to the petitioner, it

will prejudice the case of the prosecution and he may use

the same for further commission of offense. In this

regard, there is no material placed on record to show that

he may commit similar offenses. However, as per the

submission

made

by

the

Special

counsel

for

the

- 5 -

respondent, the mobile phone is already sent to FSL and

retrieved the data from the mobile phone which was said

to be allegedly erased by the petitioner. The Police also

can take all mobile phone numbers stored in the Sim card

or the phone with the help of Google. When such being

the case, if the prope