HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1132/2021 Mukesh Son Of Ranveer Singh, Resident Of Kharakh Kala, Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2026 1. By way of filing the present petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by which the application submitted by the petitioner for release of his seized mobile phone has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the phone in question i.e., Oppo mobile belonging to the petitioner was seized by the police during the course of the investigation and thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 342, 395, 120-B and 458 IPC. Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer has already collected the call records and mobile chats of the accused with the co-accused and the same has been produced on record. Hence under these circumstances, the seized mobile is not required for investigation and the same is liable to be given on supurdagi to the petitioner. In this regard, an application for obtaining the phone in question i.e., Oppo mobile on supurdagi has been submitted by the petitioner but the same was rejected (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1132/2021] by the Trial Court vide its order dated 30.01.2021, hence interference of this court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned order indicate that the seized mobile in question has been used by the petitioner for the purpose of calling and chatting in committing the alleged offence. During the course of investigation, the subject mobile phone has been sized by the Investigating Agency and thereafter, an application has been submitted for obtaining the mobile on supurdagi but the same has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the subject mobile phone is required for the purpose of investigation/trial, as it is alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 8. However, the trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. with regard to seized mobile, at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/10