Karnataka High Court
Shambulingayya Swami vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16350 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHAMBULINGAYYA SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O RACHAYYA SWAMI
R/A F-33 CHITRAKUTA
CENTURY APARTMENT,
60 FEET ROAD,
SAHAKARNAGAR,
Digitally BENGALURU - 560 092
signed by
NAGAVENI
...PETITIONER
Location:
High Court of (BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUND POLICE,
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED
BY THE S.P.P HIGH COURT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
2. NARASIMHA MURTHY P
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER
DY.S.P, FIU,
CID, BENGALURU - 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADLL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C (U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 08.07.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3893/2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY AND RELEASE THE ARTICLES WHICH IS SEIZED IN
PF.NO.35/2022 BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE, BENGALURU IN
CR.NO.60/2022 SAME IS NUMBERED AS SPL.CC.NO.590/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Pravvem C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. declining to release the articles of the petitioner drawn in appropriate way. The articles belonging to the petitioner and his family members are as follows.
"A) HP Laptop Model No.RTL873BENF, Serial No. CND628470C, B) 1 HP Laptop Model No.RTL8822CE, Serial No. CND1380GFR, C) 1 HP Laptop Model No.dm4-1041TX, Serial No. CNU0333KSB, D) Seagate S/N 9VV0N8V3, Pipeline HD.2, inbuilt Hard disc 500 GB, E) Seagate S/N 9VVC34YQ, Pipeline HD.2, inbuilt Hard disc 500 GB, F) Seagate S/N ZN12SCG7, Hard disc 1TB BarraCuda, G) Seagate S/N ST20000VX015, Hard disc 2TB SkyHawk, H) SanDisk Cruzer Blade 16GB Pendrive-1, I) SanDisk Cruzer Blade 8GB Pendrive-1."
The concerned Court rejects the application by rendering the following reasons:
-4-NC: 2026:KHC:4150 CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025 HC-KAR "This petition under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant through his counsel Sri Praveen with a request for an order and direction to the Investigating Officer for release of 3 H.P. laptops, 4 Seagates and 2 Sandisk Cruzer Blade and 8 G.B. pen drives detailed at article No.1 to 9 respectively under P.F. No.35/2022 in High Grounds P.S. Crime No.60/2022 to his interim custody for reasons stated therein.
2. The prayer of the petitioner is resisted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and sought for dismissal of the application on the strength of his written objections in the interest of justice.
3. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record. It is a case popularly known as P.S.I. scam case for offences punishable under Sections 7(a),
(c), 7A, 8, 13(1)(a) r/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 119, 201 r/w.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the High Grounds Police have seized the afore reflected articles and reported the same to this court while filing the additional charge sheet volume No. 11. Those articles are still in the custody of the police under the permission of this court. This court has already registered the case as Spl.C.C. No.590/2023 against more than 43 accussed persons. Out of them, accused No.35 Sri. Amrith Paul is the IPS Officer under the cadre of ADGP and he being the supervising authority was in the total control of the recruitment process relating to police sub-inspectors. Himself and other accused persons are facing the serious allegations of corrupt activities and offences referred above.
4. The applicant herein by name Sri. Shambulingaiah is charge sheet witness No.218. While claiming his ownership upon the articles, he has appraised the necessity of getting them to his interim custody as if he is in need of laptops for the purpose of continuing the studies of his daughter and his business. The grounds assigned by him are that, the investigation is already completed. The internal parts of the articles gets destroyed if they are kept in idle etc. Here it is not in dispute that, this applicant being the friend is the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:4150 CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025 HC-KAR financial consultant and advisor of accused No.35. The material on record including the statement of this applicant under Section 164 Cr.P.C given before the learned Magistrate (at page-21 para-2 and 3 of the charge sheet) prima-facie reveals that, accused NO.35 has kept the scam related amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- with the applicant who in turn used to store the details of the amount he was receiving in the electronic gadgets including the laptops, pen drives and hard disc etc. apart investing it in the names of the persons as suggested by accused No.35. The articles he is seeking to the interim custody are none other than those electronic gadgets.
5. The above factual discussions makes clear that, the articles sought for to release are containing the crime related information. Mere filing of the charge sheet by the investigating agency would not be a reason to simply release the articles to his interim custody as the possibility of tampering and destruction of the data stored therein cannot be ruled out in the event its release to the interim custody as rightly pointed out by the learned Prosecutor. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the retention of these articles till conclusion of the trial, is a matter of an absolute necessity to ensure the preservation and protection of crime related information. I find no merits in the prayer sought for by the informant. Accordingly, the application under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. is rejected bearing in mind the effective trial."
Since the entire issue revolves around the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and electronic evidence could be destroyed is why the application comes to be rejected. Therefore, the rejection of the application at this juncture does not warrant any interference.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:4150 CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application in the event of need, the petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45