High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the custody of Mobile Phone Vivo Android, Vivo V23 pro Mobile phone with lMEl Nos. (a) 86771805471599-Et (b) 867718054715981 and Mobite No. g18221gg17 in favour of petitioner, which was seized by the ps. Karher, Sangareddy, on 02-10- 2024 in connection with crime no. 87 of 2024 dated 01-10-2024 for the offences punishable u/sec. 329(4), 64, 1iS(2) Et 351(2) of BNS, even after a tapse of 163 daysas illegal, arbitrary Et violative to Articles 14, 19,21 Et 30oA of the lndian constitution and consequently DIRECT the respondents to release the custody of Mobile Phone Vivo Android, Vivo V23 pro Mobile phone with IME| Nos. (a) 86771805471599 Et (b) 867718os471s981 and Mobite No. g18221gg17 in favour of petitioner, during the pendency of proceedings in crime no. gl of 2024. 7 lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to DIRECT respondent No.2 to rerease the interim custody of Mobire phone Vivo Android, Vivo V23 pro Mobire phone with rMEr Nos _(a) 86711*os4r1599 Et (b) 867718054715981 and Mobire No. 918221gg'r7 in favour of petitioner during the pendency of proceedings in cr. No. g7t2o24 forthwith fairing which the petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable loss. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI RAGHU GURRAM Counset for the Respondent Nos.1 & Z: Gi fOC-rfOrvre Counsel for the Respondent No.3: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR UI.P.No. 9245 of 2o2s ORDER: Heard Iearned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondent Nos. I & 2, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing lor the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.3 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though more than 170 days have passed since, the registration of a case in Crime No.87 /2024, dt.Ol.1O.2O24, against the peritioner, wherein his mobile phone was seized by the authorities, the respondents_ authorities are not releasing the said phone to the petitioner, which action of the authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. It is also the further case of the petitioner that release of the aforesaid mobile phone to the petitioner is necessary as the data 2 containecl in the said phonc clinchingly proves his innocence as against thc alleged offence, with which he is cherrgcd

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleadcr for Home appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that the investigation into thc aforesaid crime rcgistered against the petilioner uide Cr.No.STl2O24fortheoffenceunderSection329(4\'64'115(2)& 351(2) of BNS is under progress; and that the mobile phone of the petitioner, which was seized in connection with the aforesaid crime, is neccssary for conduct of investigation' and also,having regard to the hcinous nature of the crime, the said mobile phone is necessary to be withheld, otherwise the petitioner may threaten the victim and her lamilY membcrs' Learne d Government Plcader would further submit tl'rat thc 6. petitioner having availed the remedy under Section 457 of Cr'P C'l 503 of BNSS by filing application before the concerned Court seeking release of the seized phone, and having failed to secure order therein, without availing further remedies' ca'rrnot maintain [he present Writ Petition. 7 . I have taken note of the respective submissions made'

8. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed the remedy under Section 457 of Cr.P.C /5O3 of BNSS, and the Court below having l I 3 considered the said application, rejected the same by order d:.t4.02.2025. 9 . The petitioner having already availed the remedy provided under BNSS, instead of availing further remedies thereagainst, however, choose to file the present Writ Petition claiming that release ol the mobile phone seized by the respondents-authorities in connection with Crime No.87 I 2024 is essential to prove his innocence/ noninvolvement in commission of the aforesaid offence. i0. Since, the petitioner has already availed the remedy provided under BNSS by approaching the concerned Court, it is not open for the petitioner now to abandon the course of action chosen by him midrvay and file the present Writ Petition seeking for release o[ the phone seized by the respondents-authorities in connection with the aforesaid crime, which is admittedly, being investigated into by the authorities. 1 1. Though .the petitioner claims of the respondents not having completed the investigation into the aforesaid crime even after 77O days and as such he is entitled for release of his mobile phone seized in connection with the aforesaid crime, since, the respondents-authorities plead of the investigation into the aforesaid crime under progress, this Court is of the view that the 1 \ 4 petitioner is not enlitled for bcing granted with the relief as sought for in the prescnt Writ Pctition.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. Consequently, misce llaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. / To 1 2 3 PSK. //rRUE coPY/t SD/'V.KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR l, I ,11. , seciroH bPrtcEn ff s33Jif 8i%"J#":,',Iffi d"1H?S[J3Ey,?Jorr"t'nsun''ut Hvderabad. [OUTI Triro CD CoPies LS 2/ HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.9245 of 2025 rHE 26 tl q o ,)I t ( r ) I I t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS / /,,