##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2646

1 CRR-3850-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3850 of 2024

LOKESH VERMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Arpit Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - Govt. Advocate for the

respondent/State.

ORDER

This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the

Cr.P.C./ Section 438 read with section 442 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is preferred

being aggrieved by order dated 23.07.2024 in ST No.62/2022 by the

Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), District

Indore whereby prayer for interim custody of the mobile phone bearing IMEI

No.357624692752989 (iPhone 13 Pro Max) seized in connection with crime

no.252/2022 registered at P.S.-Kishanganj, District Indore under sections

302, 307, 323, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC has been rejected.

2. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the

aforesaid mobile (iPhone 13 Pro Max) is the subject matter of evidence, and

if the mobile phone is handed over for interim custody, then there is a

possibility that the data of the mobile may be interfered.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA SINGH

Signing time: 28-Jan-26

7:40:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2646

2 CRR-3850-2024

3. Challenging the aforesaid order, this revision petition is preferred on

the ground that the bare perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is very clear that the

seized mobile phone was not used in the crime and the said mobile phone

will be rendered useless if the same is left lying at the Police Station. The

interim custody of the vehicle deserves to be given to the petitioner herein in

the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujraj; 2002 (10) SCC 283.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the revision

petition.

Heard.

Perused the record.

5. On perusal of the record, it transpires that this is the case in which

the direct evidence regarding the petitioner is available. The concerned call

detail record has been collected and the allegation in connection with the

present mobile phone is that it was found on the spot.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present revision petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 23.07.2024 is set aside. The trial Court is directed

to hand over the possession of the mobile phone bearing IMEI

No.357624692752989 (iPhone 13 Pro Max) on the following conditions:-

(a) The petitioner shall file a copy of bill of the mobile to

establish that he is the owner of the mobile in question and the trial

court shall verify the same and if the petitioner is the owner of the

mobile, the same shall be released on interim custody to the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA SINGH

Signing time: 28-Jan-26

7:40:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2646

3 CRR-3850-2024

applicant on Superdagi on furnishing surety to the tune of

Rs.80,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate.

(b) He will furnish an undertaking that he will not alienate

or sell the mobile in question during the pendency of the trial or

till the confiscation proceedings are completed.

(c) He shall not change its appearance, colour etc and he

shall produce the mobile whenever is directed by the Criminal

Court or by the Magistrate as the case may be.

7. Breach of the condition would entails cancellation of the interim

custody automatically.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction the present application

stands disposed off.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE

VS

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA SINGH

Signing time: 28-Jan-26

7:40:49 PM