Disposed

Noufal, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2023Crl.MC/781/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of an application for interim custody of an iPhone seized during an investigation. The court disposed of the petition, leaving the right to file a fresh application for custody open upon the completion of the forensic analysis report.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application for interim custody when the forensic analysis report is completed and the phone is returned.

Noufal, Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
FRIDAY,THE7THDAYOFJULY2023/16THASHADHA,1945

¶3

CRL.MCNO.781OF2023
CRIMENO.262/2022OFKARIPURPOLICESTATION,MALAPURAM
INCMP5016/2022OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS-I,MANJERI
PETITIONER/7THACCUSED:

¶4

NOUFAL,
AGED27YEARS
S/O.NOUSHAD,N.N.MANZIL,THEKKUMKARAHOUSE,
THEKKADA,VEMBAYAMP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,
PIN-695615.

¶5

BYADVS.
K.L.LAKSHMIRANI
SHEENAK.S.
HASEENAA.A.

¶6

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶7

1STATEOFKERALA,
REP.BYPUBLICPROSECUTORHIGHCOURTOFKERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031(CRIMENO.262/2022OFKARIPPURPOLICE
STATION,MANJERI).

¶8

2SUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE
KARIPPURPOLICESTATION,MANJERI,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT.
SMT.NEEMAT.V,SR.PP

¶9

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
07.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶10

CRL.MCNO.781OF2023

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2022 in CMP No.5016/2022 in Crime No.262 of 2022 of the Karipur Police Station. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner for interim release of an Apple iPhone, which was seized from the possession of the petitioner, was rejected by the learned Magistrate.

¶14

I have heard Smt.K.L.Lakshmi Rani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶15

I find that the petitioner herein is one of the accused in Crime No.262 of 2022 of the Karipur Police Station registered inter alia for offences punishable under Sections 399, 120(B), 212, 216 A, and 201 of the IPC. The application filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the phone was rejected on the basis of the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the phone had been sent for Forensic Examination.

¶16

On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

¶17

phone has been sent for analysis, and after analysis, it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking interim custody. She submits that the analysis is being expedited.

¶18

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of, leaving

¶19

CRL.MCNO.781OF2023

¶20

¶21

open the right of the petitioner to file a fresh application for interim custody as and when the report of Forensic Analysis is completed and the digital gadget is received back by the Court. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that analysis is being expedited is recorded. If an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the jurisdictional court on its merits.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶24

Sru

¶25

CRL.MCNO.781OF2023

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 781/2023

¶28

PETITIONER’SANNEXURES

¶29

AnnexureITRUECOPYOFTHEFIRNO.262/2022OFKARIPPUR
POLICESTATIONDATED10.08.2022.
AnnexureIITRUECOPYOFTHEREMANDAPPLICATIONDATED
25/08/2022.
AnnexureIIICERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEORDERDATED28.10.2022IN
CMPNO.5016/2022PASSEDBYTHEJUDICIALFIRST
CLASSMAGISTRATE-I,MANJERI.

Noufal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arya v B Vs State of Kerala

Shajuttan @ Shaju Vs Nidheesh

Fr. Thomas Peeliyanikkal Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mathew, Vs A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish

Chemancheri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. (F 779) Vs State of Kerala