ORDER

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.

367/2025 of the Karipur Police Station, Malappuram District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, during the course of the investigation, the petitioner’s mobile phone was seized by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner requires the mobile phone for his daily needs. Accordingly, he had filed an application seeking interim custody of the mobile phone. However, by Annexure 2 order, the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Cases, Manjeri (‘Trial Court’, for brevity), has dismissed the application on the ground that the mobile phone is required for being marked in evidence. Annexure 2 order is ex-facie, erroneous and irrational. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the mobile phone in question has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirur, recently. The mobile phone can only be returned after the f