IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE st ON THE 21 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53700 of 2025 CHIRAG JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Deependra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri A P S Tomar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 91/2025 by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, whereby the order passed by the learned CJM, Guna, on 25.04.2025 was upheld. By the said order, the application preferred by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 503 of BNSS for the supurdgi of his mobile phones was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Police Station Cantt registered Crime No. 338/2025 against the petitioner and others under Section 112 of the BNS and Section 4(a) of the Public Gambling Act. The petitioner is presently on bail in the said case. In connection with this offence, the police seized two mobile phones belonging to the revisionist. Both mobile phones are used by the petitioner for his day-to-day business activities, containing essential transaction details, and are also used by his family members, as the contact numbers of relatives and acquaintances are stored therein, along with other important documents. The police seized the said mobile phones on 04.04.2025, after registering the offence against the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the investigation in the present case has been completed and the trial has already commenced; therefore, there is no longer any necessity to retain the custody of the said mobile phones. The impugned orders are contrary to both facts and law, and in light of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is improper to keep seized property in custody for an unduly long period. In view of the above, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that since the aforesaid mobile phones have been sent for examination to the Cyber Forensic Laboratory, no illegality has been committed by the courts below in rejecting the prayer made by the revisionist.

Having considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record, it is evident that the mobile phones have been seized and sent for forensic examination, and the investigation in the matter has been completed. In such circumstances, the interest of justice would be met by disposing of the present petition while granting the petitioner liberty to revive his prayer after receipt of the report from the Cyber Forensic Laboratory.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive his prayer upon receipt of the report from the Cyber Forensic Laboratory.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE