Retention of unauthorizedly seized mobile phone for forensic examination remains valid if investigation interests outweigh procedural imperfections.

The petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, challenged the seizure of his mobile phone (iPhone 17 Pro Max) by the Panbazar Police Station.

On 12.02.2026, Respondent No. 6 lodged a complaint alleging that Respondent No. 5 and her boyfriend (the petitioner) forcibly entered her house.

During the inquiry, Respondent No. 6 further alleged that the petitioner had threatened to circulate AI-generated obscene photos of her and that these materials were stored on his phone.

The petitioner appeared before the police on 14.02.2026, but refused to provide his password, citing constitutional rights.

The police seized the phone via MR No. 4/2026, videographed the process as per Section 105 BNSS, and later registered Case No. 4/2026.

The device was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.

1. Whether the warrantless seizure and retention of the petitioner’s mobile phone by the police was illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of procedural requirements.

2. Whether the mobile phone should be returned to the petitioner immediately despite the ongoing forensic investigation.

Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates that the process of taking possession of any property or seizure must be recorded through audio-video electronic means and forwarded to a Magistrate.

The Supreme Court precedent in Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P. (2013), which establishes that evidence procured by improper or illegal means is not automatically inadmissible if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved, and that such methods do not necessarily offend Articles 20(3) or 21 of the Constitution.

The Court examined the police report, noting that while there were procedural "imperfections"—specifically the delay in producing the seized item before a Magistrate until 26.02.2026 due to the late registration of the FIR—the seizure was fundamentally bona fide.

The police acted on a reasonable apprehension that the device contained highly detrimental AI-generated materials targeting the victim.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s refusal to provide the password, while a claimed constitutional right, necessitated the retention of the phone for forensic analysis at the FSL.

Applying the principle from Umesh Kumar, the Court found that even if the seizure process was not "perfect," the relevance of the potential evidence to protect the victim's interests outweighed the petitioner’s demand for immediate return.

The Court found no sufficient merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the Trial Court for Zimma (interim custody) only after the completion of the investigation, provided the phone is not required as a "relied upon object" for trial.