Advocate Ganesh Ok. Sovani, showing for Mr. Apte, submitted to the court docket, “Given {that a} voluminous chargesheet exceeding 2,300 pages has already been filed, there seems to be no justifiable purpose to proceed holding the laptop computer and cell phone.” He additionally highlighted that the delay of over 9 months by the FSL in analyzing the seized devices when the job of downloading of seized materials will not be even of half an hour job and this delay has impacted the enterprise of the petitioner who’s an artiste by career.
During the listening to, Justice S.M. Modak questioned the rationale behind the petitioner’s request for the return of their seized laptop computer and cell phone.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sangeeta Shinde appeared for the State argued that the investigating company is inside its rights to grab materials that will doubtlessly include incriminating content material.
Hearing the arguments, the court docket famous that even when such content material might or might not exist, the gadgets can function related proof.
The Judge requested, “How a lot knowledge is there within the laptop computer? Can or not it’s stated that each one knowledge is incriminating? If the accused seeks entry to the machine, how will the balancing of rights happen?”
Referring to submissions made by Mr. Sovani, the court docket famous his argument that the seized gadgets include knowledge linked to the petitioner’s enterprise dealings and their continued seizure has handicapped his operations. While the Judge acknowledged that the investigating company has the fitting to grab digital gadgets related to the case, it was additionally noticed that the accused has a proper to entry non-incriminating materials wanted for his or her livelihood.
The Judge additional remarked that any entry to the gadgets would rely on examination by the forensic division. However, the police officer current in court docket didn’t carry related paperwork as he was attending one other matter. The court docket directed the APP to hunt directions from the involved police station and make clear the final correspondence made with the forensic division relating to the gadgets.
Timeline of the case
On December 4, 2023, a bronze statue of Maratha warrior and founding father of Maratha Empire, Shivaji, made by Mr. Apte was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Malval, Sindhudurg. On August 6, 2024, as per the petition, the statue collapsed on account of heavy winds and an FIR was lodged in opposition to the petitioner and the structural advisor.
On September 6, 2024, Mr. Apte surrendered himself earlier than the police and a day later, on September 6, he was produced earlier than Malvan Police Station and granted 4 days of police custody. On September 10, 2024, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malvan, transmitted the petitioner to judicial custody and he was transferred o judicial custody and despatched to Sawantwadi Jail.
On November 16, 2024, the Sindhudurg Sessions Court issued summons to the petitioner primarily based on the chargesheet filed by the police, after that on December 1, 2024, the Sessions Court decide rejected the bail utility filed by Mr. Apte.
On January 10, 2025, Bombay High Court granted bail to the petitioner. On February 4, 2025, Mr. Apte filed an utility to the Sessions Court for the return of his laptop computer and cell phone seized in the course of the investigation. On May 9, 2025, the Sessions Court reject his utility.
The petition stated that in the course of the course of investigation within the second week of September 2024, the investigating businesses seized his a POCO model cell phone, a Lenovo laptop computer model together with keyboard, mouse and a conveyable speaker.
Petitioners’ arguments
“The decrease court docket failed to understand the truth that the petitioner is an expert artiste who earn his livelihood by making / carving statues and different associated work and he has shops all his industrial contacts in addition to the contacts with these with whom he had entered into any skilled offers or agreements offers and all such knowledge has been shops in his laptop computer and cell phone and had not shops them parallely in CDs or Pen Drives and so forth.,” the petitioner argued.
He urged the court docket that he requires his digital gadgets to make shows for recent tasks utilizing softwares akin to Photoshop and Coral that the laptop computer has. “Even his spouse used to conduct on-line drawing courses by utilizing the identical laptop computer. The cell phone has contacts, images, sketches, and so forth. used for work,” Mr. Sovani stated.
