Disposed¶28

Dr. Vipin v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jan 2025CRMP/94/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), CRMP No. 94 of 2025, decided 10/01/2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J. Keywords: Section 528 BNSS; Section 457 CrPC; Supurdnama; interim custody of seized articles; D.V.R.; mobile phone; RealMe; pending investigation; tampering with evidence; disposal with liberty to approach trial Court after examination/test of seized property.

What did the court decide?

Direction that after examination/test of the seized articles, the petitioner may move an application before the concerned trial Court for taking interim custody of the said articles; the CrMP stands disposed of accordingly. ¶28

Dr. Vipin Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:1677

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 94 of 2025

¶6

Dr. Vipin S/o Shri Banshi Lal Deshlahre Aged About 41 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, MIG-3/7 Quarter No. 4180, Ward No. 50, New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.).

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Nawagarh, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, P.L.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶13

10/01/2025

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶15

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Revision No.24/2024, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), arising

¶16

¶17

out of the order dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed in Criminal Case No.179/2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the learned revisional Court has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner.

¶18

Facts of this case in brief are that the Petitioner has charged-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 354(C), 377, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with Crime No. 179/2024, registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.). In connection of the said offence, the Police has seized the ownership of articles of the petitioner, i.e., D.V.R., C.P. Plus Company, Adopter of Power Supply, 01 No. Router (Tondo company), power supply adopter, 01 Mobile of RealMe Co. (Model C-35), etc. The Petitioner filed an application U/s. 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking Supurdnama of the above articles on the ground that the Petitioner is a Doctor by profession and there is private and departmental informations are stored in the Mobile as well as other articles, which are necessary for protection of residential house. The Petitioner further submitted that he is ready to abide the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide its order dated 27.07.2024, rejected the application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the matter is under investigation and there is much possibility to tamper with the articles/equipments. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2024, the Petitioner moved before the Revisional Court by way of Criminal Revision, which was ultimately also dismissed

¶19

¶20

on 14.08.2024 in Cr. Rev. No. 24/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara District Bemetara, which is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law. Hence this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 14.08.2024, is illegal, contrary to law, hence liable to be setaside. He further contended that the Petitioner is a Doctor by profession and had stored the professional documents / Information in the mobile as well as CDR, which are required to run his profession without any hurdle. The applicant is ready to comply the all other condition, which may be imposed by the Court, while deliver the possession of the aforesaid articles. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition, set-aside order dated 14.08.2024 (ANNEXURE P-1) and issued directions for releasing the aforesaid articles on Supurdnama to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

While rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, the learned revisional Court finds that it is clear from the perusal of the record that the seized

¶25

¶26

property is the main subject matter of the crime charged against the accused. The criminal act has been committed using the said seized property as an accessory to the subject matter. The seized object is the main subject matter of the crime. The possibility of tampering with the evidence of the crime recorded in the subject matter by providing the surrender warrant at this stage cannot be ruled out. At present, the investigation of the case has not been completed. The investigation proceedings are pending, in such a situation, the learned trial court has not committed any legal error, inaccuracy or lack of justification in rejecting the application presented under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the parties. The instant CrMP stands disposed of with direction that after examination/test of seized articles of the petitioner, petitioner can move the application before the concerned trial Court for taking interim custody of the said articles.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant CrMP stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶30

Vasant

Dr. Vipin v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vipin v. the 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

Lekhu Janghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raj Narayan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Belmati Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Vs Smt. Tanu Kesharwani

Rambilas Jaiswal Vs Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal

Prateek Rao @ Babloo Vs State of Chhattisgarh