Disposed¶24

Sourav Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2026CRLREV/88/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Release/interim custody of seized mobile phone refused at investigation stage; S.503 BNSS application; CRLREV No.88 of 2026; G.R. Case No.679 of 2025; Chauliaganj P.S. No.240 of 2025; BNS Ss.196(1)(a), 197(1)(d), 353(b), 353(c), 152, 3(5); phones retained at PS Malkhana pending SFSL Bhubaneswar examination; JMFC-IV (Cog-Taking) Cuttack order dated 12.12.2025 upheld; liberty to reapply at later date reiterated; revision disposed of; petitioner Sourav Kumar Sahoo; State of Odisha; Justice V. Narasingh; decision date 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the impugned refusal stands undisturbed and the Magistrate-granted liberty to the Petitioner to file the release petition at a later date is reiterated. ¶24

Sourav Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.88 of 2026

¶3

Sourav Kumar Sahoo … Petitioner

¶4

Ms. J. Sarkar, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

11.03.2026

Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶13

Assailing the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned JMFC-IV (Cog-Taking), Cuttack refusing the prayer of the Petitioner under Section 503 of BNSS for release of the Mobile Phone seized during the investigation in connection with G.R. Case No.679 of 2025 arising out of Chauliaganj P.S. No.240 of 2025 under Section 196(1)(a)/ 197(1)(d)/ 353(b)/ 353(c)/ 152/ 3(5) of BNS, this criminal revision has been filed.

¶14

Taking into account the submission made, learned counsel for the State was called upon to obtain instructions.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

For convenience of reference the instructions received by the learned counsel for the State are culled out hereunder:-

¶17

“xxx xxx xxx

¶18

With reference to the letter and subject cited above I have the honour to submit that during course of investigation, one Samsung 524 mobile phone having IMEI No. 351373120795337 & 358777720795336 and SIM No.-9439406131 & 9938848885 has been seized from the possession of accused Goutam Lenka and one Redmi 9 Prime mobile phone having IMEI No.-868918040625882 & 868918046025890 and SIM No.-6372709767 & 8908091954 has been seized from the possession of accused Sourav Kumar Sahoo in presence of witnesses. Both the seized mobile phones are kept at PS Malkhana. The seized mobile phones will send to SFSL, Bhubaneswar for examination and opinion. So both the mobile phones are required for further investigation of the case.

¶19

xxx xxx xxx”

¶20

Considering the stage of investigation, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order so passed so as to warrant interreference with the impugned order.

¶21