IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 11191 OF 2023 CRIME NO.201/2022 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 3721/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD PETITIONER/S:

VYSHAK AGED 28 YEARS S/O SIVARAMAN, JAGAMTHARA THENARI P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN -

678622 BY ADVS.

T.K.SANDEEP SWETHA R.

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 SRI.M.C.ASHI (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

===========================

Crl.M.C.No.11191 of 2023 -------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of February 2024

ORDER

Petitioner challenges the order dated 05.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.3721/2023 in Crime No.201/2022 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad District.

2. According to the prosecution, on 17.06.2022, the accused had, in furtherance of the common intention, blocked a Hyundai Creta car, in which the defacto complainant was travelling and being armed with iron rods committed dacoity by robbing the car worth Rs.11 lakhs and cash of Rs.4 Crores apart from three mobile phones.

3. The mobile phone in the possession of the 4^th accused was seized during investigation and produced before the court. Petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of the phone, stating that he is the owner with the sim card in it and the same is not required for investigation. In support of his contention, petitioner produced the copy of the invoice as well. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application, noticing that the proceeds of the crime was used for purchasing the mobile phone.

4. I have heard Adv.T.K.Sandeep, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.M.C.Ashi, learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the mobile phone is a material object to be produced in the case and therefore, it cannot be released. The prosecution case as seen from the impugned order is that the mobile phone was purchased using the proceeds of the crime and therefore, releasing the said phone to the accused would prejudice the prosecution case.

6. Having considered the submissions made across the Bar and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find no reason or perversity in the impugned order. The mobile phone can be a material object in the case against the accused. The investigation has not yet been completed as well. If the mobile phone is a material object in the crime, releasing it on interim custody to the petitioner is not proper. However, if in case, after completion of investigation, the mobile phone is not required as a material object, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court through an appropriate application.

The Crl.MC is dismissed, subject to the above observation.

sd/

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11191/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE OF THE MOBILE PHONE DATED 19.06.2022 Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IN CMP

3721/2023 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II PALAKKAD.