Nihar Ranjan Sethy vs State Of Orissa

G. Satapathy, J.

This is a revision against the impugned order dated 26.06.2026 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 03 of 2026 refusing to release the seized mobile phone in favour of the revision-petitioner in an application U/Ss. 503 of BNSS.

Heard Mr.Sandeep Raj Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Biswal, learned Addl. PP. in the matter and perused the record.

Admittedly, the mobile phone was seized from the possession of the present petitioner, but when he applied to the learned trial Court for release of such mobile phone, the same was refused on the ground that the same may be required at the time of trial, however, the fact remains that keeping a mobile phone unused for longtime may not be worthy to be used further, and it would not benefit anyone. Further, if there is any incriminating material in the seized mobile phone, the same could have been retrieved by using appropriate hardware. It is also not in dispute that charge sheet has already been submitted, but trial is yet to commence and the apprehension of the learned trial Court can also be addressed by imposing appropriate condition on the petitioner to produce the seized mobile phone, if required at the time of trial, however, keeping the mobile phone not used for a longer period would not benefit anyone. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the criminal revision stands allowed and the mobile phone be released in favour of the petitioner on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the Court in seisin over the matter.