JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar and Mr. Srikant Swaroop, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Neha Pandey, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III, appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1125 of 2021 [arising out of POCSO Case No. 90 of 2021], whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for release of the seized mobile phone has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the concerned Court has wrongly rejected the petition for release of the seized mobile. 5. The court has perused the impugned order, from which, it transpires that the concerned court has given the reasons for not releasing the mobile phone. It is alleged that the petitioner was friend with informant on instagram and in the month of November-December, 2018, the petitioner took the informant at his Takshila Apartment and tried to control her by threatening and had committed rape and during that time some obscene photographs were taken by the petitioner to blackmail her. During course of investigation, it has come in para-49 of the case diary that the obscene photographs were taken in a pen drive for examination by the expert technician. The concerned court has also found that there is every possibility that the petitioner will temper with the data of the aforesaid mobile phone, if the mobile phone is released in favour of him. 6. In view of the above there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such this petition is dismissed.