Supreme Court Directs Delivery of Seized Mobile Device to FSL Hyderabad in Ongoing Criminal Petition

Overview of the Case

In a procedural directive issued by the Supreme Court of India, the court has addressed an interlocutory application in the criminal petition filed by Islamuddin Ansari against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The case, titled Islamuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. (Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14997/2025), involves ongoing criminal proceedings where forensic evidence plays a key role. The petitioner sought modification of a prior court order dated 08.12.2025, which had required him to provide a voice sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Hyderabad. The modification was requested on the grounds that the relevant device—likely a mobile phone—had already been seized by the police and was in their possession.

Background and Arguments

The underlying matter appears to stem from a criminal investigation requiring voice sample analysis for evidentiary purposes. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the device was already under police custody, directing the petitioner to personally provide a voice sample was impractical and unnecessary. This would allow direct forensic examination of the seized device instead.

On the other side, the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by its counsel, did not oppose the modification but emphasized the need for prompt compliance to advance the investigation. No detailed arguments on substantive merits were presented in this hearing, as the focus was on procedural logistics for evidence collection. The court heard submissions from both parties before issuing directions.

Court's Reasoning and Key Excerpts

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, recognized the practical challenges posed by the seized device's location. In its order, the bench noted:

> "A direction has been sought to the effect that the earlier order dated 08.12.2025, requiring the petitioner to provide the voice sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Hyderabad, be modified, in view of the fact that the device has already been seized and is in the possession of the police."

To facilitate the forensic process, the court issued clear instructions:

> "Having regard to the aforesaid, the Superintendent of Police, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh is directed to ensure the safe delivery of any device, including the mobile phone which may have been seized from the petitioner, to the Director, FSL, Hyderabad."

The court further mandated communication of the order to the relevant authorities, including the Superintendent of Police, District Bijnor, and the Director of FSL, Hyderabad, to ensure immediate compliance. The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 320949/2025) was disposed of accordingly.

No specific legal precedents were cited in this procedural order, as it primarily addresses logistical aspects of evidence handling under the broader framework of criminal procedure. However, such directions align with principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly Sections 91 and 311, which empower courts to summon and handle material evidence for just decision-making.

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court has effectively modified the earlier order, shifting responsibility from the petitioner to the police for delivering the device to FSL Hyderabad. The matter is listed for further hearing on 12.02.2026 at 3:30 PM as part-heard, indicating that substantive issues in the appeal remain pending.

This ruling underscores the court's emphasis on efficient evidence collection in criminal cases, avoiding redundancy when devices are already in custody. For legal practitioners, it highlights the flexibility in procedural orders to adapt to investigative realities, potentially expediting forensic reports without compromising the petitioner's rights. For the general public, it illustrates how higher courts intervene to streamline police and forensic processes in serious criminal matters.

The order was issued following arguments heard from counsel for both parties, ensuring a balanced approach to evidence preservation and analysis.