Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010231262025 2025:GAU-AS:14521 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1276/2025 SAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- LATE RAHAM ALI. R/O- VILL- MOHOURIPAM MANDIA P.O- MANDIA, P.S- BAGHBAR DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.10.2025 Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. PP for the State. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged Page No.# 2/4 the Order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in PRC Case No. 120(B)/302/34 of the IPC arising out of Hatigaon P.S Case No. 249/2028. By the said Order dated 21.11.2024 the custody of the mobile phones to the petitioner were rejected and the petitioner has challenged the said order. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner has placed a previous Order dated 19.09.2024, by which the Ld. Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Msgistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, had ordered for giving custody of the mobile phones to the petitioner on execution of bonds similar to the market value of the seized mobile phones on further condition that he will produce the same as and when necessary and he will not change the nature and make of the mobile phone without the permission of the Court. In the said order the I.O was further directed to prepare inventory of the seized mobile phone by noting the specification of the same and by annexing photographs before handing over the mobile phones to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuance to the said order the investigating officer asked for the documents showing the ownership over the mobile phones by the petitioner in addition to the conditions already specified in the said order dated 19.09.2024. The petitioner however, could not produce the valid documents claiming the ownership over the mobile phones and as such, the custody was not given to him. The petitioner had again filed the custody application and by order dated 21.11.2024 the Ld. Court of the Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) Guwahati, had observed that since the petitioner could not establish the ownership over the said mobile phones and that Page No.# 3/4 allowing the custody of the mobile phones to the petitioner would prejudice the case, the Ld. Court rejected the custody application. Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the earlier order dated 19.09.2024 the Ld. Court had specified the conditions to be complied with before handing over the mobile phones to the petitioner and in the said condition it was not mentioned that the I.O is to verify the ownership of the petitioner over the mobile phones and as such, she submits that the additional condition was uncalled for, and that the subsequent order was also bad in law. It is a settled position of law that the seized articles may not be kept in the Police Station for long as the same would result in damage of the said articles. In SundarBhai Ambalal Desai and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the valuable articles as well as currency notes had observed that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and in such cases Magistrate should pass appropriate order. It was also observed that before handing over the seized articles, photographs as well as a bond that such article should be produced at the time of trial and after taking proper security, the same may be handed over. It was observed that if such articles are not handed over to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimants, then the Court may direct such articles be kept in lockers. In the instant case, it is seen from the seizure list that mobile phones were seized from the petitioner on 04.03.2024 and 05.03.2024 and as such, the said mobile phones could be handed over to the petitioner from Page No.# 4/4 whom the said mobile phones were seized as per the said decision. Accordingly, the investigating officer may give custody the mobile phones to the petitioner after taking detailed panchhnama of such articles as well as by taking photographs and the bond that such articles be produced as and when necessary and after taking proper security, the I.O is also directed to prepare inventory of the seized mobile phones by noting the specification of the same. Accordingly, the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Zimma petition No. 4150 is set aside and quashed. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant