[2025:RJ-JP:45843] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2055/2025 Manoj Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar Meghwal, R/o Gram Beroj Thana Tatarpur District Kherthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/11/2025 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Alwar whereby, application filed by the petitioner for releasing the iPhone-14 recovered by the Investigating Agency during investigation, on furnishing security bonds by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the mobile phone is no longer required for any further investigation and in case, seizure of the same is allowed to continue, in that eventuality, the mobile phone would become non-functional and worthless. 3. The revision petition has been opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that order dated 21.08.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:45843] (2 of 2) [CRLR-2055/2025] passed by learned Court below is discretionary order and has been passed by the learned Court below by taking into consideration that the investigation in the matter is, yet to be completed and the mobile is a primary evidence, which may contain incriminating material against the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered. 5. In the light of submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations leveled by the prosecution against the accused-petitioner are required to be corroborated by the electronic information available in the mobile and it was seized and produced before the learned Court as primary evidence. The data collected in the mobile can also be put in use at the time of cross-examination for the purpose of corroboration and its release from seizure has rightly been refused by the learned Trial Court with a view to save a material piece of evidence from being tempered with. 6. In view of above, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner. I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned revision petition filed by the petitioner and the same is, hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/21