[2025:RJ-JD:42735]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1043/2025 Gulle Khan S/o Hanif Kha, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Bherokheera Post Kawni District Bikaner Raj.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

24/09/2025

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the learned special judge, NDPS Act (Additional session judge No.1), Bikaner, in sessions case no. 177/2024. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court directed the release of the seized mobile phone of the accused Shakil Khan, in FIR No. 248/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Bikaner, but only after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal or revision.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that the FIR no. 248/2024 was registered at police station Sadar Bikaneron 24.05.2024, as per the FIR, during a checkpoint near MS College, Bikaner, the accused Shakil Khan, was apprehended, and a personal search allegedly led to the recovery of 09 grams of M.D. An Apple mobile phone belonging to the accused was also seized at that time.

3. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Shakil Khan for offences under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985. During the pendency of the trial, the accused Shakil Khan, died on 13.05.2025. Consequently, the proceedings against him were abated and dropped by the Trial Court vide its order dated 21.06.2025. The petitioner, who is father of the deceased accused had filed an application under section 503 BNSS, before the Trial Court, seeking the release of the aforementioned seized mobile phone. The learned Trial court while allowing the application in part, imposed the condition that the release would be effected only after the period for filing an appeal or revision had expired.

4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and was passed with the arbitrary condition without considering the fact that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and most importantly, the trial itself has abated due to the death of the accused. He submitted that there is no legal or logical basis to withhold the property once the proceedings have been terminated. He further submitted that the delay causes undue hardship to the Petitioner, who is the rightful legal heir. He thus prays for the impugned order to be set aside and for a direction to be issued for the immediate release of the mobile phone to the Petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned order has submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and the condition imposed on releasing of the seized mobile phone is rightly imposed considering the provisions of NDPS Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record. As far as the release of the recovered mobile phone in the present matter is concerned, the provisions in this regard are contained under Section 451 and

457 the Code of the CrPC, which reproduced hereinbelow:

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property"

includes -

(a)property of any kind or document which is produc