HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8350 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2.Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 but no one is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 4. This criminal appeal has been preferred to set aside the order dated 30.8.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Saharanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 698 of 2025 (State vs. Udit Rod and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 131, 117(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur, whereby the appellant's application for release of Mobile I-phone-16 Pro Max I.M.E.I. No. 358409814486057 was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the owner of the mobile in question and that the continued detention of the mobile in police custody would lead to its deterioration. He undertakes to produce the mobile before the trial court whenever required and is willing to furnish adequate security. Reliance has been placed upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Kumar, Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Vijay Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. Per contra, the trial court had declined release of the alleged mobile on the ground that the same was allegedly used in the commission of a grave offence involving murder and police encounter, and hence its release could prejudice the investigation or the trial. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the appellant's ownership of the mobile is not in dispute. The mobile is lying in custody since its seizure, and prolonged detention of a mobile, even when seized in connection with a criminal case, serves no useful purpose, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). Its condition deteriorates over time, ultimately resulting in loss to the rightful owner as well as to the State. 8. At the same time, the release of the mobile at this stage will not, by itself, affect the ongoing investigation or trial, particularly when the appellant undertakes to produce the same whenever required. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The mobile I-phone-16 Pro Max I.M.E.I. No. 358409814486057 shall be released in favour of the appellant subject to the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties, each in the sum of 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with, dispose of, or transfer the mobile without prior permission of the court. (iii) The appellant shall produce the mobile as and when directed by the trial court during the pendency of the case. October 30, 2025 A. CRLA No. 8350 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad