Crl.Pet./1566/2025 of POWANG KONYAK Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 3 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 04-05-2026 Heard Ms. M.N. Konyak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. By way of the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner seeks setting aside, quashing and/or recalling of the order dated

27.10.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 213/2025 arising out of Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025 under Sections 61(2)/147/308(2) of the BNS read with Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, whereby custody of the petitioner’s REALME mobile handset (off-white in colour, bearing IMEI No. 860322D528895 70/43, ID No. 8991865040012955 4624, with SIM No. 9863216143) was declined.

3. The factual backdrop, in brief, is that an FIR dated 29.04.2025 was registered at the Crime Branch, Guwahati, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, two accused persons were apprehended and, on the basis of their statements, the present petitioner came to be arrested on the allegation of having harboured the said accused persons by providing them food and shelter at Naga Kitchen, AIDC Zoo Road, Guwahati. The petitioner’s mobile handset having been seized, an application was preferred seeking interim custody thereof; however, the learned Trial Court declined such relief. The petitioner was thereafter enlarged on bail by order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 2858/2025.

4. At the stage of issuance of notice, this Court deemed it appropriate to call for a report from the Investigating Officer with regard to the necessity of continued retention of the seized mobile handset.

5. Today, upon the matter being taken up, Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, submits that a report has been received from the Investigating Officer of the Crime Branch Police Station.

6. The report has been produced and perused. A perusal thereof reveals that the seized mobile handset had been forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination and that the FSL report has since been received. Significantly, the Investigating Officer has expressed no objection to the release of the mobile handset in favour of the petitioner, the forensic examination having already been completed.

7. In the considered view of this Court, once the forensic examination of the seized article stands concluded and no further investigative purpose is shown to subsist, continued retention thereof would serve no useful purpose. The refusal to grant custody, in such circumstances, cannot be sustained.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 213/2025 arising out of Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025 is hereby set aside and quashed.

9. Resultantly, the seized mobile handset shall be released to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The concerned authority shall retain a photocopy/digital record of the contents, if not already done; and

(ii) The petitioner shall not create any third-party rights therein; and

(iii) The petitioner shall produce the mobile handset in intact and working condition as and when required during the course of trial or investigation.

10. The report dated 30.03.2026 submitted by Inspector (UB) Arbil Hojai, Crime Branch Police Station, is taken on record and marked as ‘X’.

11. The criminal petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant