Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010166332024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1008/2024 PRATIBHA BORAH @ DISHA BORAH W/O UTPAL BORA (A-1) R/O GANESH NAGAR UNDER CHANDMARI P.S., GUWAHATI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, MR. S J CHOUDHURY,MR. BISWAJIT TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. Z A HASSAN, SPL. P.P., ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 17.07.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Dev Choudhury appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Z.A. Hassan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. This is an application u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023, in respect of the order dated Page No.# 2/3 16.05.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No.22/2023. The husband of the present petitioner is an accused in CID P.S Case No.20/2022. The present petitioner being the wife had a mobile phone and she gave it to her husband for use as her husband’s mobile phone was not working at that time. Police seized the mobile phone belonging to the present petitioner from her husband. Now she has filed an application before the learned Special Judge seeking custody of the said mobile phone and the same was rejected. Mr. Hassan has submitted that the mobile phone contains conversations between the husband of the petitioner with another accused of that case. The conversations are already transferred to another device. Mr. Hassan has also placed a report from the CBI addressed to him and in that report, it has been mentioned that the conversations of the mobile phone are already extracted at the FSL, Kahilipara. Today, Mr. Kamar has submitted that he will not object if the conversations extracted from the said mobile phone which are kept recorded in another device is exhibited before the trial court as primary evidence. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. Since the device in which the conversations are already transferred is allowed to be exhibited as a primary evidence, there is nothing wrong in handing over the seized mobile phone to the present petitioner. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G mobile phone that was re-seized in case of CID P.S Case No.20/2022 shall be given in custody of the present petitioner i.e. Smt. Pratibha Borah @ Disha Borah on taking a bond of Page No.# 3/3 Rs.50,000/-. It is also directed that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking that she will not dispose of the mobile phone in any manner during pendency of trial and if required, she will produce the mobile phone in the trial court. The letter written to the learned Special Public Prosecutor shall form a part of the record. With the aforesaid directions, the present criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant