Bangalore District Court
Puttaraju N vs Upparpete Ps on 5 January, 2026
1 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
KABC010286672025
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon's) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2026
Crl.R.P.No.537/2025
Petitioner: 1. Sri Puttaraju N
S/o Narayanaswami,
Aged about 32 years,
residential No. 859,
2nd Main Road,
1st Cross Road,
Viragonagar (P),
Avalahalli,
Bangalore-560049
Vivo Mobile of Mob.
No.8884888145
2. Vandana w/o Ramegowda,
aged about 50 years,
residence No.11,
9th main road,
Kurabarahalli main road
2 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Bangalore city,
Samsung Mobile of Mob.
No.9730721927, 9663098615
3. M Nagaraja chari
s/o Madhavachari,
48 Years Residing at
Water Tank road,
Khaji Sonnenahalli Village,
Kannamangala Post,
Kadagodi,
Bangalore City-560067.
Vivo Mobile of
Mo. No. 7259759789
4. Chandrashekar
s/o Late. Jayaramiah
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.18.
Vijayanagar, 3rd Main Road,
1st Cross Road,
Hosahalli,
Bangalore-560040.
Samsung Mobile with
No.7411295899
5. Veerabhadraiah
S/o TM Palakshappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.101R,
Channenahalli,
Magadi Main Road,
Tavarekere Hobli,
3 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Kadabagere Post
Bangalore Rural-562120.
Vivo mobile with
Mob. No. 7892908963.
6. Manjunatha S.
S/o Srinivas,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No. 220/2,
Kodigehalli Colony,
Near ModanaGhattamma Temple,
Behind Anganwadi,
Bangalore City-560090
Oppo 13 mobile
with Mob.No.9611611282
7. Muralidhar
s/o Late Anjanappa,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at No. 45,
Mallasandra village and post,
Kasaba hobli,
Hoskote taluk,
Bangalore rural district-560067,
Vivo-T4X mobile with
Mob No. 9342225562
8. Bharathi
W/o Ramakrishna,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No. 111,
Hatti Nilaya,
Cauvery River Road,
4 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
KG Nagar,
Bangalore -560019
Technosport Mobile with
Mob. No. 9481100515,
9481100550
9. Raghunandan
s/o Puttaraju,
aged about 35 years,
Residing at No. 63,
Sri Venkateswara Nilaya,
Rava University Back Gate,
Kogil Layout,
Bangalore City-560065,
Real Me mobile with
Mob. No. 8050060001
10. Jeevan
S/o Lakshmana K,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.63,
2nd Cross Road,
Chamundi Nagar,
BDA Layout,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560100
Samsung mobile with
Mob. No. 9980021472
11. Shivaprakash
s/o Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
R/a: Doddabelavangala village
5 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
and hobli, Doddaballapur taluk,
Bangalore rural district
Bangalore rural-561204
Vivo Mobile with
Mob. No. 8495011656
12. Raghupati Bhat
s/o Kamlesh Bhat,
aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.312,
Pearl: One Side Apartment,
Parappana Agrahara,
Bangalore-560100.
Poco mobile with
Mob. No. 9611096523
13. Kavya B S
D/o Shivaswamy,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at behind Hoskote Forest,
Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District
IQ-00 mobile with
Mob. No. 9880667292
14. Veena
W/o Late Srinivasa,
Aged about 39 Years,
R/at Government Hospital Road,
6th House, Sarjapura,
Bangalore City.
Real Me Mobile with
Mob. No. 9448447292
and 7411534544
6 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
15. Kalavathi
W/o Lokesh,
Aged about 40 Years,
R/at Muttanallur Village
Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District
Samsung Mobile with
Mob. No. 7090900799
16. Fazil S/o Late Ibrahim Sab,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at. Rajiv Gandhinagar,
Tumkur District
Tumkur-572102
Samsung mobile with
Mob. No. 9980415853.
17. Padma
W/o Late Gopalareddy,
Aged about 48 Years,
Manjenahalli Road,
Attibele, Bangalore City.
Oppo Mobile with
Mob. No. 9844651916
18. Bhoregowda
S/o Nanjudegowda,
Aged about 72 Years,
R/at Hulikalla Village,
Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District
7 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Tumakuru-572227
Redmi X mi Mobile with
Mob. No.9448683449
19. Devaraju
S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.10,
10th Main Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore North
Bangalore 560010
Iphone Mobile with
No.9342829699
20. Gopal
S/o Sivannagowda,
Aged about 35 Years,
Residing at No.12,
Hunsur Village,
Bilikere Hobli,
Halepur, Mysore District,
Mysore-571103
Vivo Mobile with
Mob. No. 7676121529
21. Venkatesh TR
S/o Late Javaregowda Ramanna,
Aged about 45 Years,
Residing at Tubikere Village,
Amrittur Hobali,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District,
8 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Tumkur -572111
Redmi Mobile with Mob.
No. 8088497082
22. Prakash N
S/o Late Nanjudaiah,
Aged about 63 Years,
Residing at No. 205,
1st Cross Road,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District
Samsung phone with
Mob. No. 95911464191
23. Pushpa J
W/o Nanjunda,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No 5/1,
KR Garden, Cox Town,
Bangalore -560005
Vivo Mobile with
Mob. No.7019915247
24. Manju Madhugiri
S/o Thimmappayya,
Aged about 41 Years,
Residing at No. 28,
4th Cross Road,
Subbanna Garden,
Near Vani Store,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore -560040.
Poco 71 C Mobile with
Mob. No.9739446626
9 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
25. Vishwas
S/o Vishwanath,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at Guningrahara village,
Shivakote post,
Yelahanka, Bangalore city-560089.
iPhone-16 mobile with
Mob. No. 8152845656,
26. Ravindra
S/o Mahadev,
Aged about 37 years,
Nayakara Street,
Nanjunagud Town,
Mysore District.
Vivo Mobile with Mob.
No. 8123719529, 9901173145
27. Ravindra
S/o Mahadev,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at Nayakara Street,
Nanjunagud Town,
Mysore District.
Mysore-571314
Oppo Mobile with Mob.
No. 8123719529, 9901173145
28. Nagaraju
S/O Nagappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Kambalagollarahatti Village
10 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
And Hobali,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District-562911.
Vivo Mobile with Mob.
No. 7829082259
29. Pratap
S/o Ramakrishna,
Aged about 29 Years,
R/at Maruti Nagar,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District-562123.
Oppo A-9 mobile with Mob.
No. 7618719429
30. Nagaraju
S/o Papaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Angadi Halli, Belur Taluk,
Hassan District-573216.
Samsung Mobile with
Mob. No.9895117352
31. Purushothama G.
S/o Late Govindaraju
Aged about 63 years
R/o No. 94,
Nesara Nanjundeshwara Prasanna
3rd Cross, 1st Stage,
Karnataka Layout,
Kirloskar Colony,
Shankaramath,
Mahalakshipura Post,
11 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Bengaluru 560079.
Redmi Mobile with
Mob No. 9916460556
32. Gangaraju
S/o Govindaraju,
Aged about 35 years
R/o No. 543,
Doddabalapura Road,
Vishveshwarapura,
Nelamangala,
Bengaluru rural District
Vivo Mobile with Mob
No. 9738575272
33. Jagadish,
S/o Siddappa,
Aged about 41 years,
R/o No. 297,
Janatha Colony,
Doddagubbi,
Bengaluru 560077.
Oppo Mobile with Mob
No. 934266613
34. Nagaraju K.
S/o Kittappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o 105, Bhairaganahalli,
Rayalapad Hobli,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District.
Oppo Mobile with Mob
12 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
No. 9886789669
35. Srinivas
S/o Late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
R/o Yadavani, Amruthur Hobli
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumakur District-572139
Samsung Mobile with
Mob No. 9164095764
36. Manjunath
S/o Chandrappa
Aged About 60 years
R/o Tavarekere Village and Post
Nandagudi Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk
Bangalore Rural District 562122.
Redmi Mobile with Mob
No. 8050786008
37. Ganesh K N
S/o Nandishappa
Aged About 35 years
R/at. No. 100, 2nd Cross,
Kambathalli Main Road,
Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru 560 083.
Samsung A 35 Mobile with
Mob No. 9945056561/
9008776653
38. Mahalinga
13 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
S/o Lakshmayya
Aged About 42 years
R/o 713, Hariharanagra,
Near TCH College Road,
Kotthanur Main Road,
Anjanapura, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru 560062
Samsung a55 Mobile with
Mob No. 99450 5656/9008776653
39. Syed Fazal
S/o Sayed Haneel,
Aged About 28 years
R/o. 20, Medimallasandra,
No.17/2, Komalsandra Village,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District
560067
Redmi 13 Mobile with Mob
No. 9901200505/9019902179
40. Rajanna A.
S/o Anjinappa
Aged About 35 years
R/o No. 55, 14th Cross,
Vivekananda Nagar
Kurubarahalli,
Kumbalahalli,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562114
Vivo Y 15 Mobile with Mob
No. 886715038/ 9900815650
14 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
41. Narayanaswamy
S/o Chinnabuddappa,
Aged About 43 years
R/o No. 418, Near Swami Brick
Factory, Ayyappa Nagar,
Shantinagar, Hoodi
Bengaluru North,
Krishnarajapura
Bengaluru 560036
Vivo Mobile with
Mob No. 8861974477
42. Srinivasmurthy,
S/o Hanumantharayappa
Aged About 47 years
R/o Kittanahalli Village and Post,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru District 562130
Oneplus Mobile with
Mob No. 9632452304
43. Swamy
S/o of Karishetty,
Aged About 47 years
R/o Kattemalalavadi,
Gavadagere hobli,
hunsur taluk
Mysore District-571134
Samsung Mobile with
Mob No. 9901224174
44. Ravi Kumar.R
S/o of Ramegowda,
15 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Aged About 47 years
R/o Horakeri street,
Ward No-06, Bannur town,
T.Narsipura Taluk
Bannur Rural
Mysore District-571101
Vivo Mobile with
Mob No. 8553779263
45. Shashikumar,
S/o Madduurappa,
Aged About 43 years
R/o Boodanahosahalli,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District 560067
Vivo TXI Mobile with
Mob No. 7795452495
46. B.Sonnappa,
S/o Late Venkatappa,
Aged About 65 years
R/o No. 13,
Sri Ramachandra Nilaya,
2nd Cross, KSFC Layout,
Lingarajapura,
Bengaluru North,
St. Thomas Town
Bengaluru-560084
I phone 16 Mobile with
Mob No. 9845409946
47. Ramesh B N
S/o B.R. Narayana Swamy,
16 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Aged About 53 years
R/o Sondekoppa Bypass,
Near New Century School,
Byraveshwara Layout,
Nelamangala
Bengaluru Rural District-562123
Samsung Mobile with
Mob No. 9448023823
48. Satish M.
S/o Muniyappa,
Aged About 40 years,
R/o 35, Sriramanahalli,
Arekere Post,
Bangalore North Taluk
Bengaluru Urban District
Bengaluru-562103
Samsung Mobile with
Mob No. 8073199151
49. Nagaraju.G
S/o Govinda.C,
Aged About 25 years
R/o Hanumanthapura village,
Yelwala Hobli,
Mysore Taluk,
Doddakalahalli
Mysore District-571130
Realme Mobile with
Mob No. 7349703074
50. Ramachandrayya R.
S/o Bylappa,
17 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Aged About 53 years
R/o Doddabelavangala Village
and Post, Bengaluru Rural 561204
Vivo Mobile with Mob No.
8747827226
51. Amarnath,
S/o Gopalappa,
Aged About 34 years
R/o Devanagudi,
Bengaluru Rural-560067
Oppo A77 Mobile with
Mob No. 9148012992
52. Shashikumar H S
S/o Sakappa
Aged About 40 years
R/o No. 187, 5th Cross,
Basavannanagara Main Road,
Thimma Reddy Layout,
Mahadevapura, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru 560048
Samsung A 14 Mobile with
Mob No. 9902265639
53. Muniraju D. M.
S/o Muniyappa,
Aged About 31 years
R/o 356, Katerammanagudi Beedi
Devanahalli Town,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural-562110
Oppo Mobile with
18 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Mob No. 7338139080
54. Jayanna G.
S/o Gangadharaiah,
Aged About 50 years
Holerahalli,
Doddabelavangala Hobli
and Post,
Bengaluru Rural District 561204
Vivo Mobile with
Mob No. 9741622308
55. Suresh C.
S/o Chikkamahimaiah
Aged About 42 years
R/o No. 10, 6th Cross,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Sallapuradamma Layout,
Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru District,
Bengaluru 560091
MI Mobile with Mob
No. 9844188328
56. Thippesh H.
S/o Huliyappa
Aged About 43 years
R/o No. 717,
Krishnegowda Building,
B Cross, 1st Main,
Chokkasandra,
T Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
19 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Bengaluru District 560057
Vivo Y 56 Mobile with
Mob No. 9620798209
57. Chikhombaiah
S/o Muthohombaiah
Aged 35 years
R/of Kakaramanahalli
Ganakal district
Ramnagar District-562 109
58. Pramila A.
D/o Manjamma,
Aged About 34 years
R/o Near Beauty Parlour,
Tataguni,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru 560062
Poco Mobile with Mob
No. 8618364733
(Sri Mohan S.Reddy, Advocate for
Revision Petitioners)
-V/s-
Respondent: State of Karnataka by Upparpet
Police Station, Bengaluru City
(Represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor)
20 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned V Addl.
ACJM, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Sections 497 read with 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody and release of 58 mobile phones seized under P.F. No.177/2025 in Crime No.288/2025 of Upparpet Police Station, came to be rejected.
2. The petitioners before this Court are 58 individuals, stated to be office bearers and workers of the Karnataka Rashtra Samiti (KRS) Party, whose personal mobile phones were seized by the respondent police on 30.09.2025 during a political protest allegedly conducted near Freedom Park, Bengaluru.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is not against the registration of the crime per se, but against the continued retention of their personal digital devices, notwithstanding their contention that (a) forensic imaging 21 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 has already been completed in respect of several devices,
(b) the devices contain vast personal and professional data wholly unconnected with the alleged offences, and (c) the learned Magistrate rejected the application solely on the ground that "investigation is pending", without exercising the statutory discretion vested under Section 497 BNSS.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality, correctness, and propriety of the impugned order preferred the Criminal Revision Petition on the following:
:GROUNDS:
a) It is submitted that Sec. 497 (1) empowers the court to make "such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody" of property produced before it; Sec. 497 (3) makes it mandatory to take photograph/videograph of such property. The legislative intent, is to record the property and not to warehouse personal release it, digital devices for months.22 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
The impugned order does not even mention Sec. 497 (3), much less record why imaging/cloning was not sufficient.
b) It is submitted that the so-called victims or affected persons, on whose behalf the prosecution claims to act, have not themselves approached either the police or the Court with any complaint or grievance. In the absence of any such direct complaint, the continued seizure of all fifty-eight mobile handsets and the refusal to release them cannot be justified on the ground of protecting unnamed or unidentified victims. This aspect, though specifically urged before the trial court, adverted has not been to in the impugned order, same perverse and rendering the unsustainable in law.
c) It is submitted that Para-12 of the impugned order merely reproduces the I.0.'s objection that "mobiles shall not be released... investigation is pending" and that the petitioners "failed out make the straightaway concludes to grounds." The discretion under Sec. 497 lies with the court, not with the I.0.
23 Crl.RP.No.537/2025The trial court has abdicated that with discretion and has thus acted material irregularity.
d) The I.O.'s report, as well as the impugned order (para 12), vaguely state that there is "severity of the alleged offences and risk to the society and risk to hinder trial process". However, the I.0. has not disclosed a single factual instance demonstrating how or in what manner the Petitioners' alleged video clips or social-media communications posed any concrete risk public order.
e) The report does not specify the exact content of the allegedly offending posts national integrity, or communal harmony or clips, the viewership, reach, reaction that society, or any or supposedly endangered causal link between the alleged material and disturbance of law and order. In absence the of such particulars, a bare recital that there exists a "risk to society" amounts to an without ipse dixit or (a severity. The assertion mere proof) and is devoid of evidentiary value. Likewise, the term "severity of offence" is 24 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 undefined and unexplained the I.O. does not state what makes the alleged offences severe, how retention of personal phones mitigates that learned Magistrate, by adopting this unexplained phraseology without scrutiny, has imported bail-stage into a property-release proceeding, thereby acting with non- application of mind and violating the proportionality principle implicit Article 19 (1)
(a) r/w Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. Judicial orders cannot rest on in subjective generalities; they must record objective reasons founded on evidence. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary, vague, and unsustainable.
f) It is submitted that even assuming some limited further extraction the Court ought to have is pending, directed the Investigating Officer to complete such imaging within a time-bound period, released the phones thereafter on appropriate bonds, or at the very least, released those handsets not specifically tied to the impugned posts. By rejecting the entire application en bloc(as a whole) the Court has imposed an excessive 25 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 and disproportionate restriction eight on fifty- individuals, thereby different causing undue hardship and defeating the very object of Section 451 of the Code which mandates prompt and judicious release of property not required for investigation.
g) It is submitted that the PF No. 177/2025 contains different makes, different numbers and different owners; some are women, some are rural residents, some are political functionaries. The court has not recorded that each of these specific devices is still required; it has only said "the mobile phones are required at the time of investigation and Such a blanket conclusion amounts to application of mind.
h) It is submitted that the seized phones contain personal, professional and political Continued retention, despite the availability of digital copies and platform logs, is a disproportionate invasion of privacy and chills political speech, particularly because the case itself arises from political/social-media activity that has already been ordered to be 26 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 blocked. A criminal court, while exercising powers over property, intrusive method. must adopt the least-intrusive method.
i) It is submitted that Sec. 438 BNSS expressly authorizes this Hon'ble Court to call for the records of "any proceeding" and satisfy itself about the "correctness, legality or propriety" of any order of an inferior criminal court and about the "regularity" of the proceedings. The impugned order is neither correct nor proper, because it omits the statutory safeguard under Sec. 497 (3); it is also irregular because it treats an I.O.'s status report as conclusive. This is a fit case for interference.
j) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Gujarat in v. State of 283 has under SCC 10 (2002) categorically held that powers Section 451 Cr.P.C. must be promptly exercised by the concerned Magistrate so that seized articles are not unnecessarily kept in police custody for long periods, and in any case not beyond fifteen days to one month. The Court emphasized that seized property 27 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 should either be released to the rightful owner on proper bond or disposed of after preparing panchnama and prevent photographic evidence, to deterioration, congestion, or misuse. This guideline has a general and binding application all criminal cases involving seized property, except where specific statutory provisions require continued retention (such as under the NDPS Act or Arms Act). Hence, the said ratio is squarely applicable to the present case, and the learned Magistrate is duty-bound to ensure that the valuable property of the petitioner is not kept idle in the police station under the guise of investigation.
k) The 1.0.'s report does not disclose which mobiles were already cloned or whose data retrieval was completed, which devices are still pending, who allegedly gave wrong what those patterns, passwords passwords were. This vagueness directly contradicts the Petitioners documented co-operation with the Investigating Officer and shows that the report was filed in a casual and evasive manner to mislead the deficient Court. By accepting such 28 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 report without any independent scrutiny or direction to clarify these vital facts, the learned Magistrate has rendered a non- speaking and unreasoned order, failing to record findings on each material aspect as required under law. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional therefore error, a non-total and perversity, application of mind, and deserves to be set aside in revision.
l) It is further submitted that the trial judge has completely failed to consider or even refer to the binding judicial precedents specifically cited in the petitioner's original application v. under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, including the ratio of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283], Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358], and subsequent High Court rulings mandating prompt exercise of powers under Section 451 CrPC/BNSS to avoid deterioration or misuse of seized property. These decisions categorically hold that seized articles should not remain in police custody beyond a brief, reasonable period and must be released 29 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 custodian to the rightful owner or their once bond proper on evidentiary value is secured. The non-consideration of these binding authorities amounts to a patent error apparent on the face of the record and renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. The learned Magistrate's omission to apply these settled guidelines has resulted in manifest illegality warranting interference in revision.
m). It is submitted that, even if the trial judge thought that all fifty-eight devices could not be released, he ought to have at least ordered the Investigating Officer to file an item-wise status report on extraction, release those phones already cloned by imposing conditions. However, the order of total rejection is erroneous and liable to be interfered by this court.
Hence the petitioner prays before this Court to set- aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Cr.No.288/2025 by the V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
5. The State has opposed the revision contending that the offences alleged involve conspiracy, unlawful 30 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 assembly, obstruction of public servants, and dissemination of false and inflammatory material through social media, thereby affecting public order. The seized mobile phones constitute primary electronic evidence, necessary not only for investigation but also for identification and proof during trial. Data retrieval is still in progress in respect of several devices, as some accused allegedly failed to cooperate by providing correct access credentials. Since the investigation is not yet complete, release of the devices at this stage would prejudice the prosecution case. Hence, prayed for rejecting the revision petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Heard arguments of learned PP for respondent-Police. Perused the material available on record and impugned order.
7. The following point arises for consideration:
1.Whether the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned V ACJM rejecting the application under Sections 497 31 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 read with 503 BNSS suffers from illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above Points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT No.1:- Before adverting to the merits, it is necessary to reiterate that this Court, while exercising powers under Section 438 BNSS, does not sit as a court of appeal. Interference is warranted only where the order of the subordinate court discloses:
Non-application of mind, Abdication of statutory discretion, Ignorance of mandatory provisions of law, or Manifest perversity resulting in miscarriage of justice.
10. It is in this narrow but potent jurisdictional 32 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 framework that the impugned order is required to be examined.
11. A careful reading of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application primarily on three broad grounds:
1. That the offences alleged are serious in nature;
2. That the investigation is still pending; and
3. That the mobile phones are required for investigation and trial.
12. However, what is conspicuously absent in the impugned order is any independent judicial evaluation of the statutory framework governing custody of seized property under the BNSS.
13. Section 497(1) BNSS empowers the criminal court to pass "such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of property" pending inquiry or trial. Section 497(3) BNSS further mandates photographing and videographing of the seized property, clearly reflecting the legislative intent that physical retention is not the norm, 33 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 but the exception.
14. The discretion under Section 497 is judicial in character. It cannot be supplanted by the opinion of the Investigating Officer. A court is required to ask:
Whether evidentiary value can be preserved by imaging/cloning;
Whether continued physical custody is demonstrably necessary; and Whether retention is proportionate to the object sought to be achieved.
15. However, the impugned order does not reflect any such exercise.
16. It is now well-settled that mere pendency of investigation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to deny interim custody of property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, has categorically held that seized articles should not be kept in police custody for long periods once their evidentiary value is secured, and that courts must adopt a 34 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 pragmatic approach to prevent unnecessary hardship.
17. The trial judge, however, appears to have treated the IO's report as determinative, thereby abdicating the discretion vested in the Court. A mobile phone today is not a mere chattel. It is a repository of personal life, political communication, professional data, and financial access. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized informational privacy as an integral facet of Article 21. Any intrusion must satisfy legality, necessity, and proportionality.
18. The impugned order does not reflect any consideration of this constitutional dimension, particularly when blanket retention of 58 devices belonging to different individuals has been ordered without an item-wise assessment.
19. Even assuming that further data extraction is pending in respect of some devices, the Magistrate was 35 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 duty-bound to explore less intrusive alternatives, such as:
Time-bound completion of forensic imaging, Conditional release of devices already cloned, Release subject to production-on-demand conditions, or Item-wise segregation of devices genuinely required.
20. The outright rejection of the application en bloc, without examining these alternatives, renders the order disproportionate.
21. The prosecution's contention that the devices are required for identification at trial is equally unsustainable. Identification can be adequately secured through: (a) Proper panchnama, (b) Photographic and videographic documentation, (c) IMEI details, and (d) Forensic hash values. Physical custody of personal devices for an indefinite period is not a legal prerequisite for proof.
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 36 Crl.RP.No.537/2025 suffers from non-application of mind, treats the IO's opinion as conclusive, ignores the mandate of Section 497(3) BNSS, and Fails to balance investigative necessity with constitutional safeguards. To that extent, the order calls for interference in revision. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Partly in the Affirmative.
23. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part. ii. The order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the V Addl. ACJM, Bengaluru, in so far as it mechanically rejects the application under Sections 497 read with 503 BNSS, is hereby set aside.
iii. The matter is remanded to the trial court with the following directions:
a) To call for an item-wise status report from the Investigating Officer indicating:37 Crl.RP.No.537/2025
Devices already cloned / imaged, Devices pending extraction with reasons, and Specific necessity for continued retention, if any.
b) To pass a fresh, reasoned order under Section 497 BNSS, considering:
The mandate of Section 497(3), Availability of forensic copies, Proportionality and least-intrusive measures, and Conditional release on bonds / production-on-demand.
c) To complete the above exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
iv. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the investigation or the guilt of the accused, and all contentions are left open.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 5 th day of January, 2026) SHIRIN JAVEED Digitally signed by SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ANSARI Date: 2026.01.08 12:50:59 +0530 (SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.