JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. The instant writ petition on the criminal side has been filed by the petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He is aggrieved by the purported illegal and unconstitutional seizure of his mobile phone by the police while being summoned by the police, in connection with a complaint lodged by respondent no. 6. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that on 12.02.2026, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein, namely Smti. Sneha Roy and Smti. Anjalina Morang, who were known to each other, lodged cross-complaints before the Dispur PS and Panbazar PS in Guwahati, making allegations upon one another. It is further stated that both these respondents are common friends of the present petitioner and that in their complaints, the petitioner was not named as an accused or suspect. Copies of the complaints have been annexed herewith. 3. In the complaint dated 12.02.2026, lodged by respondent No. 5, she stated that one Pratim Bharali has been blackmailing her in exchange of physical contact and when she threatened to go to police, he uploaded her AI-generated pictures on social media. She also alleged that the said Pratim Bharali threatened to upload more AI-generated improper videos on some pornographic sites and also threatened to throw acid on her face. 4. On 12.02.2026, the respondent No. 6 also lodged a complaint as mentioned above and in her complaint, she stated that an incident of unauthorized entry into her rented apartment took place by respondent No. 5 and her boyfriend at around 6.30 AM and that they forcefully and violently entered into her house. 5. The petitioner states that on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 6 as narrated above - the respondent No. 4 who is the OC, All Women Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, asked him to appear and that in reference to the same - even though no written notice was issued, as should have been done - he appeared before the police on 14.02.2026. It is further stated and contended that the police officials thereupon, acting in an arbitrary and high-handed manner took custody of his mobile phone (IPhone 17 Promax, EAN 195950638950, IMEI No. 357218971421059), without explaining any reasons and in violation of the procedural requirements stipulated by criminal procedure. It is further stated and contended that the police officials thereupon, acting in an arbitrary and high-handed manner took custody of his mobile phone (IPhone 17 Promax, EAN 195950638950, IMEI No. 357218971421059), without explaining any reasons and in violation of the procedural requirements stipulated by criminal procedure. The petitioner has contended that in exercise of his legal and constitutional rights, he refused to share the password of his mobile phone, and that demand for such password and the subsequent seizure of his property (mobile phone) is illegal and violative of constitutional provisions. 6. Mr. G. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner supporting his contentions narrated in the petition, submits that the exercise of seizure of the petitioner's mobile phone was an illegality and therefore, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction to get back his mobile phone. It appears that subsequently on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent no. 6, All Women PS case No. 4 of 2026 was registered by Panbazar police under section 78/79/351 (2)/296/329(3) BNS and one SI, S. Choudhury was endorsed to investigate the same. 7. Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned Additional PP, submits that a police report was called for during the pendency of this petition, pursuant to which a detailed report has been submitted by the aforementioned SI, S. Choudhury, the IO of All Women PS case No. 4 of 2026. It is stated in the report that on 17.01.2026, the complainant Smt. Anjalina Morang, 26 yrs, D/o- Sri Ratneswar Morang of Rampada Niradalaya Apartment, Bormotoria, PS- Dispur submitted a written FIR at PS stating that since June 2025 she has been receiving repeated unwanted phone calls from different unknown mobile numbers. These calls are not only made to her, but also to her family members. Despite blocking several numbers, the calls continue from new numbers. The unknown culprit posted her mobile number on social media and told that she is a prostitute. A GDE entry vide All Women PS GDE No. 19 dated 17.01.2024 was made. 8. It is further stated in the report that on 12.02.2026, the said complainant/respondent No. 6 lodged an FIR alleging about Sneha Roy and her boyfriend making unauthorized entry into their residence and assaulting her and her friend Pratim Bharali. It is further stated that during enquiry, it was found that the alleged involved persons were Sneha Roy and her boyfriend Jaspreet Singh. It is further stated that during enquiry, it was found that the alleged involved persons were Sneha Roy and her boyfriend Jaspreet Singh. It may be mentioned herein that the said, Jaspreet Singh, is the present petitioner. 9. It was further stated in the report that on 13.02.2026, as directed, the complainant, her friend and these two accused persons, including the petitioner appeared at the police station. It is further stated in the report that during inquiry, it was revealed that Jaspreet Singh had threatened the informant over phone, insulted her tribe and further threatened to circulate her AI-generated photos and videos on social media. It is stated that the first incident was based on the mobile phone used by Jaspreet Singh and that, during his appearance - despite repeated requests, he did not unlock his mobile phone and that he did not cooperate in the investigation. 10. It is stated that subsequently, the said mobile phone IPhone 17 Promax, EAN 195950638950, IMEI No. 357218971421059 was seized vide MR No. 4/2026, on that day in the presence of witnesses and seizure process was also videographed. It is stated that as Jaspreet Singh did not cooperate and the informant alleged that her AI generated private photos and videos were stored in his mobile phone and could be circulated on social media, therefore, his handset was retained at the police station. It is further stated that though the said seized mobile phone was sent before the Court for being seen, but due to non-registration of FIR at that time, the same could not be seen. However, on 25.02.2026, All Women PS case No. 4/2026 was registered under the section 78/79/351 (2)/296/329(3) BNS. 11. Thereafter, the mobile handset, seizure list and the CD containing videography of the seizure were made seen before the Court of the learned CJM, Guwahati on 26.02.2026. It is further stated that presently the mobile is at the FSL, Kahilipara, where it was sent on 02.03.2026 for forensic examination. Copies of the relevant documents including the seizure list, the prayer for making seen of seizure list and seizure item, the GDE details, the acknowledgement of the FSL have been annexed with the report. 12. Before proceeding further, section 105 BNSS may be reproduced here below:- “ 105. Copies of the relevant documents including the seizure list, the prayer for making seen of seizure list and seizure item, the GDE details, the acknowledgement of the FSL have been annexed with the report. 12. Before proceeding further, section 105 BNSS may be reproduced here below:- “ 105. The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.” 13. From the contentions in the report, it appears that the police /prosecution is contending that the mobile phone was retained and detained for good reasons and it was seized by an MR number and seizure list; however, though it was produced before the Court, it was not seen by the Court due to non-registration of FIR. 14. Needless to say that criminal procedure has laid considerable emphasis and importance to prompt production of the seized articles before the Court to ensure that the credibility of the seizure process remains good and acceptable. In the instant case, it is clear that the seizure was made seen only on 26.02.2026. Though the object is stated to have been properly seized by MR No. 4/26 and seizure list on the basis of GD entry No. 19 dated 17.01.2026. 15. Unlike some other jurisdictions, in our legal regimen, even if evidence is gathered in an improper manner, the same would not necessarily be inadmissible, subject to some other cross checks and balances. In this regard, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 591 , the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:- “ 35. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This Court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offends Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law.” 16. I have given my consideration to the matter and perused the relevant materials. 17. At the time of the seizure, though only GD entry was made and PS case came to be registered subsequently - but it appears that the police seized the mobile phone due to apprehension about it containing materials which could be highly detrimental to the informant/victim. And therefore, the said retention or seizure of the mobile phone at that time cannot be said to be completely unjustified, even though the procedure may not have been perfect. As already narrated and discussed, the police contends about seizure list and MR number pertaining to the seizure and an effort to make it seen by the Court, which however did not happen immediately due to non-registration of the FIR at the time. 18. The present position revealed from the report is that a case has been registered (All Women PS case No. 4/2026) and investigation is going on and as part of the same, the mobile phone is awaiting forensic examination at the FSL. 19. Thus, even though there might have been some imperfections at the time of seizure/retention of the mobile phone, but the reasons contended by the police for doing so appears bona fide to this Court and in the interest of the informant/ victim girl. Further, as revealed from the materials indicated in the report, the mobile phone is awaiting forensic examination. 20. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find sufficient merit in the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the mobile to him immediately. Further, as revealed from the materials indicated in the report, the mobile phone is awaiting forensic examination. 20. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find sufficient merit in the prayer of the petitioner for releasing the mobile to him immediately. It cannot be overlooked that the initial retention of the mobile was due to his purported non-cooperation in giving the password for unlocking the mobile, wherein the police suspected some materials detrimental to the victim girl. The contention of not giving a password has been admitted by the petitioner, though he has taken recourse to the protection of his constitutional and legal rights. 21. Directing the mobile phone to be returned forthwith to the petitioner could be detrimental to the investigation, as the same has already progressed in the meantime and could also render injustice to the informant, if indeed there are any incriminating materials pertaining to her in the mobile. A prudent course of action at this stage would be to reject the prayer for immediate handing over of the mobile and to wait for the completion of investigation, whereupon, if the mobile phone is not indicated as a relied upon object for trial, if any - then the petitioner can certainly knock the doors of the learned Trial court for Zimma/ interim custody of the said electronic object. 22. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances and in view of the above discussion - I do not find sufficient merit in this writ petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.