[ 2026:JHHC:8730] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2026 Shankar Kumara Ray, aged about 31 years, son of Baban Ray, resident of village / Town-Kisan Nagar, Bijuliya Talab Road, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh, Jharkhand ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Md.Sameer, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Misc. Crl. Application no. 493 of 2024 arising out of NDPS Case no. 05 of 2024, corresponding to Ramgarh P.S. case no. 156 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh rejected the application of the petitioner for release the seized mobile phone in favour of the petitioner and the prayer has also been made for directing the concerned authority to release the seized mobile phone in favour of the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of NDPS case no. 05 of 2024. The allegations against the petitioner is that, the petitioner in capacity of a contractor of MES, got access to Ramgarh Military cantonment. The petitioner was found in illegal possession of 50g of opium. Police seized opium and the mobile phone from possession of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for release his mobile phone. A report was called for from the police. The police confirmed that the mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner but the said mobile phone was [ 2026:JHHC:8730] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2026 required for completion of investigation against the co-accused persons. Considering the fact that the mobile was required for investigation of the case against the co-accused person, learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh rejected the payer for release of the mobile phone. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been admitted to bail. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the mobile phone and in support of the same, the petitioner has relied upon an Annexure 2 at page 25, which appears to be a cash memo purportedly issued by New Balaji Telecom. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false, hence, the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl. PP on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the address of the petitioner as mentioned in this petition is village Kisan Nagar, Bijuliya Talab Road, Ramgarh but the said address of the petitioner do not tally with the address as mentioned in the said cash memo; as therein the address has been mentioned as R. Cantt., Jharkhand. Further the cash memo does not bear the signature of the petitioner as customer and model of the mobile phone also does not tally with the model mentioned in the seizure list moreover the same does not bear the signature or seal of the authorised representative of the seller. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Misc. Crl. Application no. 493 of 2024 corresponding to NDPS Case no. 05 of 2024 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. case no. 156 of 2024, in rejecting the prayer of release of mobile phone in favour of the petitioner on both the grounds that the same is required for investigation of the case, in [ 2026:JHHC:8730] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2026 respect of the co-accused persons and that the sole document i.e. the cash memo of the mobile purportedly claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner, do not inspire confidence because of the discrepancy in the model number, the address of the petitioner and the absence of the signature of the customer or authorised signatory on behalf of the seller, who has issued the said cash memo; as the space for authorised signatory or the signatory on behalf of the seller is also blank. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd March, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 04.04.2026