RENSON K R vs STATE OF KERALA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25569

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
RENSON K R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2065 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.745/2024

Important Points

High Court sets aside unreasoned Magistrate's order denying interim custody of seized mobile phone under BNSS, directing reconsideration.

Subject

Criminal - Miscellaneous Petition

Act Referred

Indian Penal Code: S.406, S.420
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: S.497, S.528

Headnote

Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were invoked in a crime registered against the accused for alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating. The accused sought interim custody of seized mobile phone and articles under Section 497 BNSS, but the Magistrate released only other articles without reasons for denying the phone. The High Court found non-application of mind by the Magistrate. The main issue was whether the Magistrate's order rejecting interim custody of the mobile phone was reasoned. The court held that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS could be exercised due to lack of reasoning, setting aside the order to the limited extent of directing reconsideration. The Crl.M.C. was allowed, directing the Magistrate to reconsider the application expeditiously within one month after hearing parties.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.D.LEEMA ROSY
For the Respondents: PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH

Table of Content
1. accused seeks interim custody of seized mobile phone denied without reasons. (Para 1 , 2)
2. high court finds non-application of mind, directs reconsideration under bnss. (Para 3 , 4)

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.745/2024 registered by the Hill palace Police Station, Ernakulam, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that he was arrested on 23.12.2025 in connection with the above crime. The Investigating Officer has seized his mobile phone and other articles for the alleged purpose of investigation. Although the petitioner had filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , (‘ BNSS ’, in short) seeking interim custody of the mobile phone and other articles, by Annexure A3 order, the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tripunithura, (‘learned Magistrate’) has only permitted the other articles to be released to the petitioner. There is no reason stated by the learned Magistrate for not releasing the petitioner’s mobile phone. The petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner is entitled for the interim custody of the mobile phone, especially since it is not required for the investigation. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. On a perusal of Annexure A3 order, I find that the learned Magistrate has not given any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking interim custody of his mobile phone. The learned Magistrate has only directed the other articles to be released to the petitioner. I find that there has been total non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate is not considering the petitioner’s application for interim custody of his mobile phone. Thus, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this court under Section 528 of the BNSS . In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C., by setting aside Annexure A3 order to the limited extent of directing the learned Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner’s application for granting interim custody of his mobile phone, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of copy of this order, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard.