Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
H.Jayavignesh – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
CRL OP No. 18537 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prakash Goklaney, Q. Rubina
For the Respondents: R. Rajasekaran
The court directed the expedited completion of forensic data extraction from a seized mobile phone and its subsequent deposit in the Special Court within three months to facilitate the petitioner's legal remedies.
Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking a direction for the respondent police to deposit a seized Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max with the Trial Court to enable the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Special Court for TNPID cases. The petitioner contended that the device had been seized for two years and was not returned upon application on the grounds that it was with a forensic expert. The primary issue was whether the seized device should be deposited in court despite ongoing forensic analysis. The court observed that while the respondent argued the necessity of extracting data for offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act, the process of extraction must be completed at the earliest to ensure the property reaches the Special Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS , praying to direct the respondent police to deposit the Mobile Phone viz., Apple I-Phone 13 pro Max, 256 GB, Blue colour, more fully described in the schedule to the petition, to the Trial Court to enable the Petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Special Court for TNPID cases, Chennai and pass such further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper circumstance of the case and thus render justice.
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition is filed aggrieved by the action that the petitioner’s cellphone was seized, and two years have gone by. When the petitioner filed application for return of the cellphone, the same was not returned and it is stated that it was forwarded to the Forensic Expert. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner is an accused in serious offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and it is just necessary that all the contact details and every information in the mobile phone be analysed and extracted in detail by the Expert. It is further stated that the mobile phone was originally forwarded to Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, and from there it was sent for analysis.
Be that as it may, the prayer of the petitioner is also returned on the ground that the property has not reached the Special Court. Therefore, let the process of extracting the data be completed at the earliest, and the respondent shall take such steps to follow up the matter, and the mobile phone shall reach the Special Court as expeditiously as possible. A copy of this order shall also be placed before the appropriate Expert and the Expert shall give preference to the mobile phone of the petitioner, in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, the mobile phone shall reach the Special Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.
