Interim custody of seized properties can be granted to rightful owners under specific conditions without disputing their evidentiary status.

O R D E R

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is an approver in RC No.02(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/TVPM registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The crime was initially registered by the Nilambur Police Station and subsequently, handed over to the respondent. The petitioner was initially arrayed as the 2^nd accused in the crime. Subsequently, she was granted pardon under Section 306 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and was made an approver. At the time of the petitioner’s arrest, a mobile phone and laptop (‘seized properties’, for short) were seized by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is the undisputed owner of the seized properties. The investigation in the case is complete and Final Report has been filed. Consequently, the petitioner had filed an application before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, seeking interim custody of the seized properties. However, the same was dismissed by the committal court and the challenge against the order was also rejected by this Court as per Annexure 2 order. Annexure 1 order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary.

Hence, this Crl.M.C

2. The respondent has filed a report, inter alia, stating that, it is true that the petitioner’s mobile phone and laptop were seized by the respondent. The same was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for cyber analysis. Several incriminating evidences have been recovered from the seized properties. The said material is crucial for the prosecution case. Therefore, the seized properties cannot be released to the petitioner till the conclusion of the prosecution trial. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

3. I have the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Asifkhan N v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2025 KHC Online 1960] , wherein this Court, while dealing an order of a similar nature, has gone on to hold that there is no legal embargo in granting interim custody of a property to its rightful owner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., provided the owner of the property does not dispute such electronic and digital record as primary evidence. This Court relying on the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002 (10) SCC 283] has held that, the owner of the property should be granted interim custody during the pendency of the trial.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has no objection in filing an affidavit before the jurisdictional Court stating that she would not dispute that the data that was copied from the mobile phone and the laptop are primary evidence and can be used in evidence.

6. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the entire data from the mobile phone and the laptop have been copied down by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the same is produced before the jurisdictional Court, I am of the definite view that there is no legal impediment in granting interim custody of the mobile phone and the laptop to the petitioner, as prayed for, in the Crl.M.C.

in the aforesaid circumstance, I allow the Crl.M.C in the following manner:

(I) Annexure 1 order is set aside.

(ii) The jurisdictional Court is directed to grant interim custody of the mobile phone and laptop involved in the crime to the petitioner, subject to the condition that she executes an affidavit before the jurisdictional Court specifically undertaking that she would not dispute that the electronic and digital record copied down by the Forensic Science Laboratory from the mobile phone and the laptop is primary evidence, and furthe