##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA th ON THE 15 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43012 of 2026 SHUBHAM PATEL Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anurag Sharma - Dy. GA for the respondent/State.

ORDER The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of BNSS against the order dated 20.7.2026 passed by Special Judge, Vidisha in Case No.165/2026 SCATR, whereby application under Section 503 of BNSS for releasing the mobile has been dismissed.

2 . The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that FIR was registered against the accused vide Crime No.03/2026 by Police Station AJAK, District Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 331(3), 305(A) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(z), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and alleging that Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 Mobile phone, belonging to the petitioner was involved in commission of aforesaid offence.

3. The petitioner claims to be registered owner of the said mobile phone. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an application under Section 503 of BNSS before the Trial Court for releasing the aforesaid mobile phone which was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the said mobile phone and the aforesaid mobile phone is in custody of Police and is lying in unsafe custody while it requires continuous maintenance from time to time and if it is kept locked, the battery and other parts of the said mobile phone will be out of order and the same will become useless for any work. There is no use of keeping the said mobile phone in police custody for years till the trial is over. Trial is not likely to conclude in near future and may take long time. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release the said mobile phone of the petitioner. Petitioner has filed copy of bill voucher of aforesaid mobile phone issued by Mahaveer Mobile, Near Railway Station, Below Ashirwad Bhojnalay, Vidisha. The CDR location data is already available with the investigation agency.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected the application. He further submits that no palpable error on the face of record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order impugned. The said mobile phone would be required during the trial for describing the nature of the property in detail, therefore he prays for dismissal of the instant petition. He relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.

and others vs. Kallo Bai reported in (2017) 14 SCC 502.

6. Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Sundar Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has laid down the procedure for disposal of the valuable items like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as under :-

“Powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail;

and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

8. On bare reading of the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court, Sectio