Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16350 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHAMBULINGAYYA SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O RACHAYYA SWAMI
R/A F-33 CHITRAKUTA
CENTURY APARTMENT,
60 FEET ROAD,
SAHAKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 092
Digitally
signed by
NAGAVENI
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUND POLICE,
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED
BY THE S.P.P HIGH COURT
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
2. NARASIMHA MURTHY P
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER
DY.S.P, FIU,
CID, BENGALURU - 560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADLL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C (U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 08.07.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3893/2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY AND RELEASE THE ARTICLES WHICH IS SEIZED IN
PF.NO.35/2022 BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE, BENGALURU IN
CR.NO.60/2022 SAME IS NUMBERED AS SPL.CC.NO.590/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Pravvem C., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner is before the Court calling in question
an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Sections 451
and 457 of Cr.P.C. declining to release the articles of the
petitioner drawn in appropriate way. The articles belonging to
the petitioner and his family members are as follows.
"A) HP Laptop Model No.RTL873BENF, Serial No.
CND628470C,
B) 1 HP Laptop Model No.RTL8822CE, Serial No.
CND1380GFR,
C) 1 HP Laptop Model No.dm4-1041TX, Serial No.
CNU0333KSB,
D) Seagate S/N 9VV0N8V3, Pipeline HD.2, inbuilt
Hard disc 500 GB,
E) Seagate S/N 9VVC34YQ, Pipeline HD.2, inbuilt
Hard disc 500 GB,
F) Seagate S/N ZN12SCG7, Hard disc 1TB
BarraCuda,
G) Seagate S/N ST20000VX015, Hard disc 2TB
SkyHawk,
H) SanDisk Cruzer Blade 16GB Pendrive-1,
I) SanDisk Cruzer Blade 8GB Pendrive-1."
The concerned Court rejects the application by rendering
the following reasons:
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
"This petition under Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant through his
counsel Sri Praveen with a request for an order and
direction to the Investigating Officer for release of 3 H.P.
laptops, 4 Seagates and 2 Sandisk Cruzer Blade and 8
G.B. pen drives detailed at article No.1 to 9 respectively
under P.F. No.35/2022 in High Grounds P.S. Crime
No.60/2022 to his interim custody for reasons stated
therein.
2. The prayer of the petitioner is resisted by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor and sought for
dismissal of the application on the strength of his written
objections in the interest of justice.
3. After hearing the arguments, I have gone
through the record. It is a case popularly known as P.S.I.
scam case for offences punishable under Sections 7(a),
(c), 7A, 8, 13(1)(a) r/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and
Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 119, 201 r/w.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the
High Grounds Police have seized the afore reflected
articles and reported the same to this court while filing
the additional charge sheet volume No. 11. Those
articles are still in the custody of the police under the
permission of this court. This court has already
registered the case as Spl.C.C. No.590/2023 against
more than 43 accussed persons. Out of them, accused
No.35 Sri. Amrith Paul is the IPS Officer under the cadre
of ADGP and he being the supervising authority was in
the total control of the recruitment process relating to
police sub-inspectors. Himself and other accused persons
are facing the serious allegations of corrupt activities and
offences referred above.
4. The applicant herein by name Sri.
Shambulingaiah is charge sheet witness No.218. While
claiming his ownership upon the articles, he has
appraised the necessity of getting them to his interim
custody as if he is in need of laptops for the purpose of
continuing the studies of his daughter and his business.
The grounds assigned by him are that, the investigation
is already completed. The internal parts of the articles
gets destroyed if they are kept in idle etc. Here it is not
in dispute that, this applicant being the friend is the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
financial consultant and advisor of accused No.35. The
material on record including the statement of this
applicant under Section 164 Cr.P.C given before the
learned Magistrate (at page-21 para-2 and 3 of the
charge sheet) prima-facie reveals that, accused NO.35
has kept the scam related amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/-
with the applicant who in turn used to store the details of
the amount he was receiving in the electronic gadgets
including the laptops, pen drives and hard disc etc. apart
investing it in the names of the persons as suggested by
accused No.35. The articles he is seeking to the interim
custody are none other than those electronic gadgets.
5. The above factual discussions makes clear that,
the articles sought for to release are containing the crime
related information. Mere filing of the charge sheet by
the investigating agency would not be a reason to simply
release the articles to his interim custody as the
possibility of tampering and destruction of the data
stored therein cannot be ruled out in the event its
release to the interim custody as rightly pointed out by
the learned Prosecutor. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that, the retention of these articles till conclusion of the
trial, is a matter of an absolute necessity to ensure the
preservation and protection of crime related information.
I find no merits in the prayer sought for by the
informant. Accordingly, the application under Section
451 and 457 Cr.P.C. is rejected bearing in mind the
effective trial."
Since the entire issue revolves around the offences
punishable under Section 406, 420, 465 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and electronic evidence could be destroyed is why
the application comes to be rejected. Therefore, the rejection of
the application at this juncture does not warrant any
interference.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4150
CRL.P No. 16350 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary
application in the event of need, the petition stands disposed .
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45