1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 703 of 2025 Narayan Solwanshi S/o Bhukhau Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Balod, District- Balod C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Balod, District - Balod, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. The applicant has been preferred this instant case under Section 438 R/w Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod (C.G.) whereby the learned Judge had rejected the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of seized mobile phone. 2. The case in nutshell is that the applicant/accused, at the behest of co-accused Utkarsh Gupta and Ajmal, had opened bank SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.24 18:41:45 +0530 2 accounts in the names of different individuals and linked those accounts to a mobile number, for the purpose of receiving money fraudulently acquired. On 03.02.2025, as per the memorandum statement of the applicant/accused Narayan Solwanshi, the Police of Police Station Balod seized a cash amount of 1700, along with a Vivo mobile phone, model no. ₹ 1933, IMEI no. 865895047262735, and the SIM card inserted in the said phone, bearing mobile number 9993305537. Based on above, offence has been registered against the accused. The applicant is the owner of the said mobile phone and he filed an application under Section 497 of the BNSS before the learned trial Court for taking possession of the said mobile phone but the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the mobile phone is the subject matter of evidence. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the seized mobile phone, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said article, therefore, he is entitled for the Supurdnama. He next submits that the seized mobile is kept for a long time idle in the police station, there are danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the mobile in the police station till the trial is concluded, therefore, it is prayed that the seized mobile phone may be released on Supurdnama. In support of his case, he rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Arjun Singh 3 @ Aman Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRMP No.734/2024 on 09.05.2024. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the Applicant and supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering that the said mobile number was used by the applicant for receiving the amount obtained through fraudulent means. Therefore, the mobile phone in question is material evidence in the case and if the said mobile phone is handed over to the applicant on supurdnama (custody), there remains a possibility that the data stored in the device may be tampered with, therefore, at this stage, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham