Allahabad High Court
ANUGAR KUMAR @ ANURAG DUBEY @ DABBANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order seizing the mobile phones and allowed the applicant to seek release upon proving ownership, while permitting the prosecution to approach manufacturers for unlocking.
Summary
The applicant, Anugar Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking the release of three mobile phones seized by the police in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant argued that the phones were falsely implicated, that retaining them at the police station would render them junk, and cited Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court precedents supporting release of seized property. The State contended that the applicant could not unlock the phones because he had forgotten the passwords, limiting the prosecution’s ability to extract data. The High Court found merit in the applicant’s arguments, set aside the Special Judge’s order of seizure, and directed the applicant to file an application proving ownership within one month, while allowing the prosecution to approach the manufacturers to unlock the devices. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of seizure of the applicant's mobile phones under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act should be set aside.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of the seized mobile phones pending proof of ownership.
- Whether the prosecution may approach the mobile phone manufacturers to unlock the devices for data extraction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mobile phone seizure
- evidence preservation
- ownership proof
- U.P. Gangster Act
- Section 482 CrPC
- property rights
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39224 of 2026
Anugar Kumar @ Anurag Dubey @ Dabban
.....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 Shri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
applicant, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
setting aside of the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by learned Special
Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No. 07,
Farrukhabad in Case No. 1142 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 63
of 2026, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, Police Station Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is the
applicants' three mobile phones have been seized by the police. The said
mobile phones have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He
further submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
mobile phones of the applicant at the police station which would result in
becoming junk. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 said mobile
phones 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. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that earlier when the
applicant was asked to open the passwords of the mobile phones, he
replied that he has forgotten the same, therefore, necessary datas could
NA528 No. 39224 of 2026
2
not be collected from his mobile phones.
5. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that as
applicant has forgotten the passwords of said seized mobile phones, the
prosecution may contact company of mobile phones for breaking the their
passwords.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.A.G., and
after perusing the order 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.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by learned Special
Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No. 07,
Farrukhabad in the aforementioned case, is hereby set aside with the
liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application along with all
relevant documents showing the ownership of the vehicle, before the
concerned Court below 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. However, it is also open for the
prosecution to approach the respective companies of these seized mobile
phones for opening of their locks and for collecting datas as required by
the prosecution.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 16, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…