The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the mere seizure of a mobile phone during a criminal investigation does not justify its prolonged retention when there is no evidence linking it to the commission of the offence. This ruling reinforces the principle that property rights, even in serious criminal cases, cannot be indefinitely suspended without justification.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Lokesh Verma, sought interim custody of his iPhone 13 Pro Max, seized by police during the investigation of FIR No. 252/2022 registered at P.S. Kishanganj, Indore. The case involved charges under Sections 302, 307, 323, 294, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC relating to murder, attempt to murder, and rioting. The trial court rejected the petitioner’s application for interim custody, reasoning that the mobile phone constituted material evidence and risked data tampering if released.
Procedural History
- 2022: FIR registered against the petitioner and others
- 2024: Petitioner filed application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for interim custody of the seized mobile
- 23.07.2024: Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), denied the application
- 28.01.2026: Criminal Revision filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release of the mobile phone on interim custody, arguing that it was not used in the commission of the offence, was his personal property, and would become unusable if kept in police custody indefinitely. He relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to support his claim.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a mobile phone seized during investigation but not proven to be an instrumentality of the crime can be withheld indefinitely from its lawful owner, or whether interim custody with safeguards must be granted under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the F.I.R. contained no allegation that the mobile phone was used to commit, facilitate, or conceal the offence. He emphasized that the phone was merely found on the spot, not used as a weapon or communication tool in the crime. He cited Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to assert that personal property not connected to the offence must be returned on interim custody, subject to conditions.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the mobile phone was a crucial piece of evidence, as call detail records were being analyzed and data might be tampered with if released. It argued that the trial court’s discretion to retain evidence must be respected, and no precedent compelled release of seized items absent statutory mandate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the distinction between an instrumentality of crime and mere incidental possession. It noted that the F.I.R. did not allege the mobile was used to plan, communicate, or record the offence. The Court observed that the trial court’s refusal was based on speculative risk of data interference, not concrete evidence of tampering.
"The mere fact that a mobile phone was found at the scene does not transform it into an instrumentality of the crime. To deny interim custody without any nexus between the device and the offence violates the owner’s right to property under Article 21."
The Court distinguished Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, where the Supreme Court held that personal property not used in the commission of the offence must be returned on conditions. It emphasized that the burden to prove nexus between seized property and the offence lies with the prosecution, and in the absence of such proof, retention becomes arbitrary.
The Court further held that interim custody with binding conditions - such as surety, undertaking not to alter or sell, and mandatory production - sufficiently safeguards the interests of justice without compromising evidentiary integrity.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed the release of the mobile phone on interim custody, subject to conditions including a surety of ₹80,000, an undertaking not to alter or alienate the device, and mandatory production before the court. The Court held that ownership rights under Article 21 prevail over speculative evidentiary concerns when no nexus is established.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners must now assert interim custody as a default right for personal property seized in criminal cases, unless the prosecution establishes a direct nexus to the offence
- File applications under Section 438 B.N.S.S., 2023 or Section 457 Cr.P.C. with supporting affidavits of ownership and absence of evidentiary link
- Cite Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and this judgment to counter blanket refusals by trial courts
Ownership Documentation Is Critical
- Always submit original purchase bills, warranty cards, or IMEI registration proofs to establish ownership
- Trial courts are now obligated to verify ownership before granting custody - failure to do so renders refusal legally unsustainable
- In cases involving multiple accused, separate applications must be filed for each owner’s property
Conditions Are Non-Negotiable Safeguards
- Courts will impose strict conditions: surety, no alteration, no sale, mandatory production
- Breach of any condition automatically cancels custody - no further hearing required
- Practitioners must advise clients to strictly comply; even minor violations (e.g., changing case cover) may trigger cancellation
