Balasundar Arumugan v. The State rep. byThe Inspector of PoliceCCB, FIW, Beta-10
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CRL RC No. 398 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANCrl.RC No. 398 of 2026 Balasundar Arumugan..Petitioner(s)VsThe State rep. by The Inspector of PoliceCCB, FIW, Beta-10A, VeperyChennai-7.Crime No.160 of 2025..Respondent(s)Prayer: This criminal revision case is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No.16629 of 2025 by CCB and CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai District to direct to return the seized property namely Vivo V20 Pro (Grey Colour) and Samsung S24 to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):For Respondent(s):Mr.R.MaduraiveeranMr.R.Kishore KumarGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThis criminal revision has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.16629 of 2025 by the learned CCB and CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No.
398 of 2026__________Page2 of 42. According to the petitioner, he had filed an application under Section 497 r/w.503 of BNSS in Crl.M.P.No.16629 of 2025 seeking release of the seized properties, namely a Vivo V20 Pro (Grey Colour) and a Samsung S24, in his favour. However, the learned Magistrate, has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 20.01.2026 stating that the matter warrants reconsideration. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said mobile phones absolutely belong to the petitioner. He further submits that the mobile phones are neither a material object directly linked to the offence nor required for further investigation. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.4. The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police.5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.6.
Operative part
On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has observed that the whatsapp messages are required to be retrieved from the said phones and that the devices have been sent for forensic analysis. In view of such findings, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 398 of 2026__________Page3 of 4passed by the learned Magistrate.7. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 11-03-2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NorapTo1.The CCB (CBCID) Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai2.The Inspector of PoliceCCB, FIW, Beta-10A, VeperyChennai-7.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 398 of 2026__________Page4 of 4C.KUMARAPPAN, J.rapCRL RC No. 398 of 202611-03-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.