Failure Of Accused To Produce His Mobile Phone During Custody Not 'Non-Cooperation': Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the accused's failure to submit their mobile phones to the police while in custody cannot be considered 'non-cooperation' as the accused is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. A single judge bench of Jusitce Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar was considering the bail pleas of N.Suresh Babu, a former Member of Parliament, and Avutu...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the accused's failure to submit their mobile phones to the police while in custody cannot be considered 'non-cooperation' as the accused is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
A single judge bench of Jusitce Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar was considering the bail pleas of N.Suresh Babu, a former Member of Parliament, and Avutu Srinivasa Reddy, a businessman (petitioners).
The prosecution's case is that the petitioners along with 70 others belonging to the YSRCP party forcibly entered the TDP State office and attacked TDP supporters and employees.
One of the reasons given by the State for opposing the bail plea was that Babu failed to provide his mobile phone to the police. It contended that the mobile phone is crucial for further investigation of the case.
The Court referred to a Delhi High Court case of Sanket Bhadresh Modi V. Central Bureau of Investigation (2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5), where it was observed that the accused cannot be coerced to disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices or gadgets seized during the investigation while the trial is ongoing, in view of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
The Court was of the view that failure to provide a mobile phone to the police cannot be termed as non-cooperation as the accused is protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
The Court remarked “In the light of the above principles, the failure of accused in submitting their mobile phones while in custody cannot be termed as non-cooperation from the accused. Investigation agency may not feel deterred in securing further electronic evidence simply because it could not take hold of the mobile phones from the accused.”
Here, the Court noted that material objects and electronic evidence were collected by the police. It noted around 34 accused have been released on bail and stated that their occupation, residences and availability for previous years indicate that they are not likely to avoid the process of law.
It opined that continued detention was unnecessary. It thus granted bail to the petitioners/accused.
Case title: Avuthu Srinivas Reddy Versus The Station House Officer (CRIMINAL PEITION Nos.6295 and 6306 of 2024)