Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

GOPAL TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court set aside both impugned orders and directed that the applicant may obtain release of the mobile phones upon furnishing proof of ownership.

Summary

Gopal Tiwari filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash two orders that rejected his request to release two mobile phones seized in a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 3803 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 189, 170, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. The applicant asserted that he is the registered owner of the phones and that retaining them at the police station would render them junk. The State opposed the application. The High Court, after hearing counsel and reviewing the impugned orders, found merit in the applicant’s arguments and set aside both the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 03.07.2024 and the revision order dated 23.07.2025. The Court directed the applicant to file an application with proof of ownership within one month, after which the matter would be disposed of expeditiously. The application under Section 528 BNSS was thereafter disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the orders rejecting the release of the seized mobile phones should be quashed.
  • Whether the applicant, as the owner, is entitled to the return of the seized mobile phones pending proof of ownership.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • mobile phone seizure
  • property release
  • quash order
  • Section 528 BNSS
  • criminal procedure
  • ownership proof
  • revision petition

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37585 of 2026

Gopal Tiwari
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :     Shailendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :     G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as
well as perused the material brought on record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kannauj in Criminal Case No. 3803 of 2024, arising out of
Case Crime No. 244 of 2024, under Sections 189, 170, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police
Station Kannauj, whereby release application moved on behalf of the
applicant has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for quashing of
order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, District Kannauj, whereby revision moved on behalf
of the applicant against the aforesaid order has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is the owner
of two mobile phones of Apple Company and Infinix Company and that
the said mobile phones in question in have been falsely implicated in the
aforesaid case. He further submits that no useful purpose would be
served in keeping these two mobile phones at police station which would
result in becoming junk. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied
upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sunder Bhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 in support of
his contention, in which it has been held that it is not desirable in the
matter of motor vehicle, the vehicle be kept at the police station for a long
time which result in the vehicle becoming junk, therefore, the vehicle-in-
question should be released in favour of the registered owner on such
terms and conditions as the court below may deem fit and proper. Learned
counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the decision of this
Court reported in 2012 (77) ACC 381 Shyam Singh Kushwaha Vs.
State of U.P. and another, in support of his contention.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and
                                                                                           NA528 No. 37585 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    after perusing the orders impugned as well as averments made in the
                                    present application, this Court is of the opinion, that the arguments as
                                    raised by learned counsel for the applicant has substance.

                                    5. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 03.07.2024 and
                                    23.07.2025, are hereby set aside with the liberty to the applicant to file an
                                    appropriate application along with all relevant documents showing the
                                    ownership of those two mobiles phones, before the court concerned, and
                                    if such an application is filed within one month from today, the same shall
                                    be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance
                                    with law, preferably within a period of one month, thereafter.

                                    6. With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 528 BNS
                                    is finally disposed off.


                                                                                  (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.