Gauhati High Court
CRL.REVN/17/2026 of KEVICHUTUO CUZE Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND on 17 June 2026
GAHC020004242026 2026:GAU-NL:362 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : CRL.REVN/17/2026 KEVICHUTUO CUZE S/O LATE CHUPFUO CUZE, R/O NERHEMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. P.S. CHIEPHOBOZOU, PRESENT ADDRESS - BILLY GRAHAM ROAD,
GAHC020004242026
2026:GAU-NL:362
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : CRL.REVN/17/2026
KEVICHUTUO CUZE
S/O LATE CHUPFUO CUZE, R/O NERHEMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. P.S. CHIEPHOBOZOU, PRESENT ADDRESS - BILLY
GRAHAM ROAD, KOHIMA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND
NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : T. KHEZHIE, K SOTE,N KERETSU,THEJA
VITSU,ROVIMENO THOU,ALEZO KIRE
Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18-06-2026 Heard Mr. Alezo Kire, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned PP for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 528 of the BNSS read with
Section 442 and 438 of the BNSS has been filed praying for releasing the seized mobile phone of the petitioner on Zimma.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that his mobile phone/Iphone 13 was purchased from N. Electronics, Kohima, Nagaland, and for which cash memo has been duly issued to the petitioner. That, the said mobile phone was seized by the Kohima North Police Station on 13.06.2025 in connection with Kohima North PS case No. 16/2025 when the petitioner was arrested. The investigation has been completed in the instant case and chargesheet has already been submitted. It is contended that in the said chargesheet there is no mention about any FSL report with regard to the seized mobile phone and the list of documents annexed to the chargesheet does not have any indication about the seized mobile phone.
4. Mr. Kire, learned counsel has fairly drawn my attention to the impugned order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court, mentioning the submission of the prosecution that the mobile phone in question was purchased out of the proceeds of crime (drug peddling) and is crucial for evidence as an exhibit.
5. With regard to the earlier order of this Court, the learned PP has submitted a copy of the photograph of the envelope, where the mobile phone is stated to be packed and sealed and it mentions the case number and exhibit.
6. In this context, the learned PP submits that the said mobile phone is in a packed and sealed condition and marked as a material exhibit to be exhibited during the trial. The said contention of the prosecution is also reflected in the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies that the mobile phone is purchased with the proceeds of crime and that, it was purchased very shortly before his arrest in the case, and that it has no connection to the date of the alleged offence, further submitting in this context, that he was arrested few months after the alleged offence.
8. It is clear that the mobile phone which was seized in the case has been earmarked as a material object for exhibit during the trial. The contention of the prosecution is that the mobile phone which is being earmarked for exhibiting is in a packed and sealed condition. Broadly on these grounds, the impugned order was passed, rejecting the prayer for interim custody.
9. Upon giving my anxious consideration in the matter, I am of the considered view that within the ambit of revisional jurisdictional, this Court does not find any perversity or gross error in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
10. Therefore, the said order is hereby upheld and confirmed, thereby dismissing this criminal revision petition.
11. However, during the course of the trial, if the prosecution expeditiously exhibits the mobile phone as a material object; thereafter, the petitioner as the purported owner of the same would be at liberty to prefer an application before the learned Trial court for release of the same.
12. The revision petition stand dismissed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant