- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1599 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PAVAN K S/O KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 203, DODDA KANNALI SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560035 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 15.11.2024 ONE PASSED BY METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND J.M.F.C (TRAFFIC COURT-1) MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.50/2024 ON AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.451 & 547 OF CR.PC ONE FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION ONE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure is with a prayer to set aside the order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the trial Court in Cr.No.50/2024, rejecting his application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, allow the application filed by him for release of property in PF.No.23/2024 i.e., I-Phone 15 Pro Max 256GB to his interim custody pending disposal of the case. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that impugned order is not sustainable. While passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court in Vishal Ramesh Kadwani Vs. State of Karnataka (Vishal Ramesh)1 Crl.RP.No.210/2024. The trial Court has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 rejected his application for interim custody of the seized property mainly on the ground that the electronic invoice produced by him does not contain his signature. The invoice in question disclose the invoice number as well as SGST component. There are no rival claims. In the absence of proper environment for safe keeping of the property in question, there is every chance of it being spoilt or its value deteriorated. Admittedly, the property in question is seized from the possession of the petitioner. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and hence, the petition. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent/State submitted that when the trial Court disposed of the application filed by the petitioner charge sheet was not yet filed. Now that the charge sheet is filed, the petition may be allowed and property in question may be handed over to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to conditions. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 4. Heard arguments and perused the record. 5. On 03.04.2024, the Police Inspector, Cubbon Park P.S filed a complaint to the effect that on 02.04.2024, he received credible information that some persons are engaged in online betting with regard to the IPL cricket match held between Royal Challengers, Bengaluru and Lucknow Super Giants, inside M.Chinnaswamy Stadium. He secured permission from I ACMM, Bengaluru and warrant from ACP. At 10.30 p.m, he along with staff entered Gate No.9 and apprehended accused No.1 Sanjeev Kumar. On examination of Redmi Note-9 cell phone found with him and also the entry ticket, it was found that he was engaged in online betting using gold365.site betting website through ID: gk498sanjeev13 passwaord-skb192003. Similarly when they apprehended one more person by name Pavan he was also engaged in online betting using I-phone 15 Promax on LASER247.com betting website through ID Vinod839lr password - Vinod@8892. The relevant screenshots were also taken. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 Both accused were taken in to custody and their cell phones were seized through mahazar. The accused, seized cell phones and other material is produced before the station for necessary action. 6. Based on the complaint, Cr.No.50/2024 is registered and investigation is taken up. After completing the investigation, charge sheet is filed. 7. The petitioner/accused No.2 filed application under Section 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C to release I-phone 15 Promax to his interim custody, pending disposal of the criminal case, contending that he is the owner of the same. If kept idly without proper protection, it will loose its value and become useless. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. The trial Court has rejected his application, mainly on the ground that the receipt/invoice for having purchased the cell phone does not contain the signature of the seller as well as the buyer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 the invoice in question is not original and copy of it is collected from the shop where petitioner has purchased the cell phone in question. In the same manner, photocopy of invoice is also produced before this Court bearing the signature of the authorized signatory as well as the petitioner/purchaser. 8. It is not in dispute that the cell phone in question is seized from the custody of the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2. Already it is subjected to examination by the Cyber Crime division, CID, Bengaluru. After completing the investigation, charge sheet is filed. Therefore, no longer the cell phone is required for investigation. Of course, it is required at the time of evidence for marking. Since petitioner is claiming interim custody of the cell phone he cannot dispute its recovery from his possession. To safe guard interest of the prosecution, necessary conditions may be imposed for production of the same at the time evidence, etc. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 9. For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the cell phone in question subject to conditions and accordingly, the following: ORDER (1) The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 397 r/w 407 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. (2) The seized items under PF bearing No.23/2024 i.e., I-Phone 15 Pro Max 256GB at Annexure-C1 is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner/accused No.2 subject to the following: CONDITIONS i. The petitioner shall execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of the State of Karnataka. ii. He shall not sell or dispose it of nor change its identity. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12854 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2024 iii. He shall produce it as and when directed. iv. The investigating Officer shall take photographs of the cell phone in different angles to be used for its identity at the time of evidence (if already not taken). iv. The Investigating Officer shall retrieve the data of the cell phone in question (if already not done) Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52