Petitioner sought return of a mobile phone seized as evidence in a pending criminal case. The High Court held the refusal reasonable to preserve evidence and dismissed the petition.
Refusal to return the seized mobile phone was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 195 of 2019
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
| For Petitioner | : Shri Kaushal Yadav, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondent/State | : Shri V.A. Goverdhan, PL for the State |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
22/01/2019
2
order records that said mobile was used to demand the money of Rs.33000/-
one of the ingredient of the complaint, therefore, would be a necessary/important evidence during the trial. The reason assigned in the order appears to be reasonable and return of the original mobile if is made, it will diminish/destroy the evidence itself. Considering the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri
Judge
Ashu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the mobile phone seized during a pending criminal trial should be returned to the illegal possession of the petitioner.
Vipin Tiwari
State of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
