1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6134 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

RAMESH BABU V M
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT 1ST CROSS
MALLIGE ROAD
GOKULA EXTENSION
TUMKUR-572104
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.R.SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TUMAKURU TOWN POLICE
TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
 2

PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, TUMKURU IN CRL.MISC. NO.514/2021 DATED
26.04.2022 AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE MOBILE i.e
SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE-20 ULTRA 5.G MODEL, HAVING
IMEI NO.3536841200494780/01 AND
357689640494786/01 IN FP.NO.179/2020 DATED
12.10.2020 IN CR.NO.93/2020 TO THE INTERIM CUSTODY
TO THE PETITIONER.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the

respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-

accused No.6 under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for

setting aside the order passed by the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in

Crl.Misc.No.514/2022 dated 26.04.2022 for having

dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for

release of the mobile phone i.e. Samsung Galaxy Note

 3

- 20 Ultra 5.G. model, under Section 451 read with

Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the

mobile phone, which was seized by the police during

the investigation in a criminal case where the petitioner

is said to be accused No.6 in Crime No.93/2020 for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.

5. During the investigation, the mobile phone

was seized. The petitioner filed an application for

releasing of the same. The trial Court rejected the said

application on the ground that he has not produced any

receipt. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the

mobile phone and he is having a SIM Card in his name.

Such being the case, rejecting the application for

 4

releasing the mobile phone from interim custody is not

correct.

6. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal

Desai V/s. State of Gujarath reported in 2002

Vol.(10) SCC 283, the articles cannot be kept idle in

the police station and the same should be released

within 15 days. Such being the case, the trial Court

committed error in rejecting the application. Therefore,

the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, I pass the

following:

ORDER

a) The criminal petition is allowed.

b) The trial Court is directed to release the

mobile phone i.e. Samsung Galaxy
 5

Note-20 Ultra 5G model to the

petitioner.

c) The petitioner shall execute indemnity

bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with a surety for the like
sum.

d) The Investigating Officer shall take a

photograph of the Mobile Phone for the
purpose of identification which is in
interim custody.

e) Petitioner shall produce the mobile

phone as and when called for the
identification.

f) Petitioner shall not alienate with the

same without permission of the trial
Court.

Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY