O R D E R

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondent Nos.1 & 2, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.3 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though more than 170 days have passed since, the registration of a case in Crime No.87/2024, dt.01.10.2024, against the petitioner, wherein his mobile phone was seized by the authorities, the respondents- authorities are not releasing the said phone to the petitioner, which action of the authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. It is also the further case of the petitioner that release of the aforesaid mobile phone to the petitioner is necessary as the data contained in the said phone clinchingly proves his innocence as against the alleged offence, with which he is charged.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that the investigation into the aforesaid crime registered against the petitioner vide Cr.No.87/2024 for the offence under Section 329(4), 64, 115(2) & 351(2) of BNS is under progress; and that the mobile phone of the petitioner, which was seized in connection with the aforesaid crime, is necessary for conduct of investigation, and also having regard to the heinous nature of the crime, the said mobile phone is necessary to be withheld, otherwise the petitioner may threaten the victim and her family members.

6. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner having availed the remedy under Section 457 of Cr.P.C./ 503 of BNSS by filing application before the concerned Court seeking release of the seized phone, and having failed to secure order therein, without availing further remedies, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition.

7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed the remedy under Section 457 of Cr.P.C./503 of BNSS, and the Court below having considered the said application, rejected the same by order dt.14.02.2025.

9. The petitioner having already availed the remedy provided under BNSS, instead of availing further remedies thereagainst, however, choose to file the present Writ Petition claiming that release of the mobile phone seized by the respondents-authorities in connection with Crime No.87/2024 is essential to prove his innocence/noninvolvement in commission of the aforesaid offence.

10. Since, the petitioner has already availed the remedy provided under BNSS by approaching the concerned Court, it is not open for the petitioner now to abandon the course of action chosen by him midway and file the present Writ Petition seeking for release of the phone seized by the respondents-authorities in connection with the aforesaid crime, which is admittedly, being investigated into by the authorities.

11. Though the petitioner claims of the respondents not having completed the investigation into the aforesaid crime even after 170 days and as such he is entitled for release of his mobile phone seized in connection with the aforesaid crime, since, the respondents-authorities plead of the investigation into the aforesaid crime under progress, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for being granted with the relief as sought for in the present Writ Petition.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

27^th March, 2025.

gra THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 9245 of 2025 Dt.27.03.2025 gra