Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3482 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar Saklani v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-09-18

Virender Singh

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant-Sanjay Kumar Saklani, has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), against the order dated 18.07.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Cr.MP No. 2485/2024, titled as Sanjay Kumar Saklani versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Vide order dated 18.07.2025, the learned trial Court has partly dismissed the application, filed by the petitioner, under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.PC), for release of the articles, which were taken into possession, by the Police, in case FIR No.120 of 2023, dated 24.09.2023, registered under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC, Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, with Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 3. The factual position, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 3.1. The petitioner has moved an application, under Section 457 Cr.PC, before the learned trial Court, for release of the articles, which were taken into possession, by the police, in the aforestated FIR. The said application was decided by the learned trial Court, after issuing notices to the respondent-State. 3.2. By way of the said application, the articles, as mentioned in para 7, from serial No.1 to 20, were ordered to be released to the petitioner, whereas, the application for release of his Cell Phone OPPO Company having twin sims bearing No.70186-01939 and 94184-74252, Laptop (DELL) and plastic file folder having 26 pages, containing details of the persons, who joined Korvio and Hypenext, has been ordered to be rejected, on the ground that the above articles are the case property and will be exhibited during the trial. 3.3. Another ground, upon which, the said application, qua release of those articles, has been rejected, is that the above articles are material evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. 4. 3.3. Another ground, upon which, the said application, qua release of those articles, has been rejected, is that the above articles are material evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. 4. Aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed before this Court, assailing the order, mainly, on the ground that the laptop and mobile phone handset, sought to be released, are valuable electronic items and are vulnerable to decay with the passage of time, if not put to use. 4.1. Another ground, upon which, the order, by virtue of which, the application of the petitioner was rejected, has been assailed is that the trial will take sufficient long time. 5. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ishan Sharma, has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, by  virtue of which, the application of the petitioner, under Section 457 Cr.PC, has been rejected. 6. The prayer, so made, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been opposed by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State, on the ground that the articles, which have been sought to be released, are material piece of evidence and in case, they are ordered to be released on Supurdari, the vital link between the crime and the offender would be destroyed. 7. The prayer has also been opposed on the ground that the articles, which were seized by the Investigating Officer, during investigation, are vital piece of evidence to establish the modus operandi of the fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme. The charge sheet is stated to have been filed, before the learned trial Court and the articles are stated to be in the safe custody of the Police. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 9. In this case, the police has also submitted the status report, according to which, the laptop and mobile phone are stated to be containing the vital digital evidence, including trust wallet details linked with Korvio IDs associated with the petitioner and the excel sheets, containing structured data of the Korvio team built by the petitioner. 10. 9. In this case, the police has also submitted the status report, according to which, the laptop and mobile phone are stated to be containing the vital digital evidence, including trust wallet details linked with Korvio IDs associated with the petitioner and the excel sheets, containing structured data of the Korvio team built by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to how the articles, which are in safe custody of the police, can be released to him, when, it is the specific stand of the police that the above mobile phone and laptop, contain the vital digital evidence against the applicant. 11. A futile attempt has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by arguing that the data, which is allegedly in the mobile phone and laptop, can be copied in the Compact Disc (CD) and the same can be proved during the trial, but the said arguments are devoid of merit, as, admittedly, the above two articles are owned by the petitioner and in case, the same are released to him, then chances of destruction of vital link between the data containing in the mobile phone and laptop, cannot be ruled out, completely. 12. The prosecution has every right to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence before the learned trial Court. Moreover, when the specific undertaking has been given by the Police that the laptop and mobile phone are kept in the police custody safely, then, the apprehension of the petitioner, qua damage of the above articles in the police custody, at this stage is unfounded. 13. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court. As such, the present petition is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.