Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R. Varadaraj, filed a Criminal Revision under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) challenging the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.11209 of 2025. The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's application for return of his Apple iPhone Pro Max, which was seized by the respondent police on 07.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.28 of 2025. The seizure was related to certain YouTube content allegedly telecast by the petitioner concerning the judiciary. The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the mobile phone, if kept idle, would deteriorate and become unusable. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the return, submitting that there was every likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar offence in the future. The High Court considered the submissions and noted that the petitioner had been enlarged on bail and was an accused in the case. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, which held that seized property prone to deterioration may be returned subject to conditions, and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, which held that ordinarily property may be returned unless there exists a statutory reverse burden upon the accused. The court observed that the offences alleged under Sections 296, 192, 196, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 do not impose any reverse burden. The court further held that the Magistrate's ground of possibility of repetition of offence was a hypothetical consideration and not a valid ground to deny interim custody. The court also took note of the submission that the mobile phone had been forwarded to the Forensic Sciences Department on 04.11.2025 and was yet to be returned after forensic analysis. Accordingly, the court allowed the Criminal Revision, set aside the impugned order, and directed the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate to return the Apple iPhone Pro Max to the petitioner after completion of forensic analysis, subject to conditions: (i) execution of a personal bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties; (ii) undertaking not to alter, alienate, or encumber the phone; and (iii) undertaking to produce the phone as and when required. The court also directed the Forensic Sciences Department to complete the analysis expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Property - Return of Mobile Phone - Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS - The petitioner sought return of his iPhone seized in connection with alleged vituperative YouTube content. The Magistrate rejected the application citing possibility of repetition of offence. The High Court held that such hypothetical consideration is not a valid ground to deny interim custody, especially when the property is prone to deterioration. The court directed return after forensic analysis subject to conditions. (Paras 5-8) B) Evidence - Forensic Analysis - Expedited Completion - The court directed the Forensic Sciences Department to complete analysis expeditiously to facilitate return of the mobile phone. (Para 9) C) Criminal Law - Offences under BNS and IT Act - No Reverse Burden - Sections 296, 192, 196, 353(2) BNS and Section 67 IT Act - The court noted that the alleged offences do not impose any reverse burden on the accused, distinguishing cases where property may be retained. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seized mobile phone should be returned to the petitioner pending trial, considering the risk of deterioration and the absence of a statutory reverse burden.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.11209 of 2025 is set aside. The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, is directed to return the Apple iPhone Pro Max to the petitioner after completion of Forensic Analysis, subject to conditions: (i) execution of personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties; (ii) undertaking not to alter, alienate or encumber the phone; (iii) undertaking to produce the phone as and when required. The Forensic Sciences Department is directed to complete the analysis expeditiously.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized property
- deterioration of electronic device
- no reverse burden under BNS and IT Act
- hypothetical possibility of repetition not valid ground to deny custody
