Allowed¶23

Purushottam Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Feb 2025CRMP/123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; CRMP No. 123 of 2025; Section 497 BNSS; interim release/return of seized mobile phones and sim cards; Supurdnama; release after FSL report; personal bond Rs.30,000/-; Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Raigarh order dated 24.08.2024 set aside; Crime No.161/2024; bail earlier granted in CRA No. 957 of 2024; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; decision date 27/02/2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order of the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh set aside; the two seized mobile phones alongwith sim cards to be released on Supurdnama to the petitioner after obtaining the FSL report, subject to verification of ownership documents, photographs and a production bond, and a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-. ¶23

Purushottam Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court below rightly rejected the petitioner's application under Section 497 of BNSS seeking release of the two seized mobile phones (alongwith sim cards).

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is the owner of the phones in question and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the said phones in police custody.

¶22

Key takeaways

This Court held that present is a fit case for releasing the seized phones in favour of the petitioner.ratio¶22
The petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court below is set aside.ratio¶23
After obtaining the FSL report of the mobile phones in question alongwith sim cards, the phones are to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner subject to conditions: verification of ownership documents, taking of photographs and execution of a bond to produce the phones and sim cards as and when required, and a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- as security.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP No. 123 of 2025, decided 27/02/2025, Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) - Release of seized property under Section 497 BNSS. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.08.2024 of the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh, rejecting his application for return of two mobile phones (with sim cards 9425299567, 9575767968, 9926160046) seized in Crime No.161/2024. Noting that the petitioner was the owner of the phones, that the chargesheet had been filed and trial commenced, and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the phones in police custody, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed release on Supurdnama after obtaining the FSL report, conditioned on verification of ownership documents, photographs and a production bond, and a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-.

2025:CGHC:9914

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 123 of 2025

¶6

Purushottam Pradhan S/o Late Naveen Pradhan Aged About 34 Years R/o Paterapali, Thana And Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner Mr. Amiya Bhushan, Advocate. For State Mr. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶13

27/02/2025

¶14

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocities Act), Raigarh, C.G, whereby application of the petitioner under Section 497 of BNSS seeking two mobile phones, has been rejected.

¶15

Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that victim lodged report against the appellant stating that the appellant has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her under the threat that

¶16

¶17

he will make her obscene video viral. Based on said report, Crime No.161/2024 was registered against the appellant. During course of investigation, two mobile phones alongwith sim cards bearing (sim number 9425299567, 9575767968 and 9926160046) has been seized. For releasing the same, appellant filed an application before the Court below under Section 497 of BNSS, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has committed an illegality by rejecting the application of the petitioner. On competition of investigation, chargesheet has been filed before the Competent Court and trial has already commenced before the Court. The alleged call details using the petitioner's phone is already part of the charge-sheet. The cell phones are out of use, same would get damage, if it is lying in police custody. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the phones in police custody and, therefore, the said phones be handed over to the petitioner on on the terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by this Court. Learned Counsel also pointed out that petitioner has already been granted bail in Crime No.161/2024 by this Court vide order dated 01/08/2024 passed in CRA No. 957 of 2024.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the contention made by the petitioner and would submit that said seized phones has been sent for examination.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the petitioner is

¶21

¶22

owner of the phones in question and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the said phones in police custody, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for releasing the seized phones in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Court below is set aside. It is directed that after obtaining the FSL report of the mobile phones in question alongwith sim cards, same be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶24

(i) Before release of the mobile phones, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said phones be verified.

¶25

(ii) Photographs of the mobile phones should be taken and bond should also be produced that the mobile phones alongwith sim cards would be produced as and when required.

¶26

(iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.30,000/- be obtained before release of mobile phones and sim cards.

¶27

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶28

Purushottam Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khageshwar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Parikshit Charan Vs Shri Puneet Dalmia

Ravikant Sahu Vs Kamal Kapoor Banjara

Radhe @ Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shahin Bano Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Henu Bai Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal