Mobile devices containing evidence material to prosecution cannot be released pending trial even when sought by a non-accused person.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN A.Selvarani W/o Raj, No.290 Mansion Site, Police Quarters, Thousand Lights, Greams Raod, Chennai.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police W1, All Women Police Station, Thousand Lights.

Crime No.12 of 2025.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS to Set aside the order dated 25.02.2026 made in Crl.MP.No.176 of 2026 in Crime No.12 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive for Trial cases under POCSO act at Chennai and allow the above Criminal Revision and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated

25.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No.176 of 2026 in Crime No.12 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for return of the seized mobile phones.

2. An F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.12 of 2025 for the alleged offences U/s.9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the petitioner's husband, who was arrayed as the accused. The allegation against the accused is that he inappropriately touched the victim girl and sexually assaulted her. During the course of investigation, the mobile phones belonging to the petitioner were seized by the respondent police.

3. The petitioner sought return of the said mobile phones and undertook to produce the same before the trial Court as and when required. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that, if the mobile phones were returned, the evidence contained therein might be lost.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a named accused in the case; that the mobile phone is not the case property and the same is not required for the purpose of establishing the offence and that she would abide by any stringent condition, if the mobile phones are returned to her.

5. Mr. R. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), submitted that the mobile phones were seized during the course of investigation and that the said mobile phones contain images and videos of the victims, including several obscene videos, and therefore constitute the primary evidence in the case.

6. A perusal of the records reveals that the mobile phones contain several videos, which constitute vital material objects required to prove the charges against the accused. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking return of the mobile phones.

7. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.176 of 2026 by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

30-04-2026 dpa To

1.The Inspector of Police W1, All Women Police Station, Thousand Lights.

2.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

dpa

30-04-2026