The court ruled on the conditional release of a seized mobile phone, emphasizing the importance of preserving evidence while preventing unnecessary damage.

Judgment

11/07/2025 The present criminal revision petition under Section 438 /442 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application under Section 503 BNSS, moved by the petitioner for releasing/handing over the mobile phone i.e. Apple Company on ‘supurdgi’.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet in this case has already been presented and the mobile phone in question is unnecessarily lying in the police custody and the same may get damaged. Hence, it is prayed that the mobile phone in question may be released on ‘Supardginama’. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Jaipur Bench in Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 507 . In the aforesaid judgment, the vehicle and other articles were seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity.

It is in that background, the Court has acceded to the prayer of the incumbent and recorded its finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle and other articles are likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release of the vehicle and other articles on Supurdginama and surety cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle and other articles can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 and co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Prakash Chand (supra) has held that conditional release of the vehicle cannot be denied.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey Vs.

State of Assam reported in 2025 3 SCC 241 has observed that :-

27. Though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, yet the Courts do not take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.

28. Undoubtedly, the Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the trial court is hereby quashed to the extent of refusing to release the mobile phone in question on ‘supurdgi’ and it is ordered that the mobile phone i.e. Apple Company be released on ‘supardgi’ till the completion of the trial upon following conditions:-