ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Instant petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the order dated 01.04.2024 passed in case No.51/2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar whereby application to release the mobile phone of petitioner seized in connection with FIR No.99/2023 registered at Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar under Section 341, 307, 324, 326 411 and 120B IPC and Sections 5/27, 3/25, 5/25 of the Arms Act, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that during investigation in the aforesaid FIR, mobile phone Android One Note Plus Note CE 5G of petitioner has been seized. Now the investigation is complete and the mobile is laying in custody of the police for no use. If there is any connecting or incriminating evidence is in the mobile, the data of the same can be saved, but mobile instrument may be released to petitioner on supurdgi as in absence of same, petitioner is facing hardship in performing his day to day workings. Reliance has been placed on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283]. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and states that the mobile and its data would be relevant evidence in the present case, therefore, during course of trial the mobile may not be released. However, in the alternative, it has been stated that if the mobile is released to petitioner, the prosecution be permitted to save the mobile data so as to produce the same during course of evidence. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has issued directions in respect of disposal of property seized during course of investigation and to release during course of trial expeditiously as per provisions of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. In the present case as far as instrument mobile of petitioner is concerned, the same has not been stated to be useful for trial, as only its data has been alleged to be relevant. In such view of the matter, the state is at liberty to move an application before the trial court allowing to secure data of the mobile, if same has not been already secured earlier. In such view of the matter, the state is at liberty to move an application before the trial court allowing to secure data of the mobile, if same has not been already secured earlier. Needles to observe, if the mobile instrument is allowed to remain in custody of police, same may diminish its value and destroy, whereas the release of mobile instrument to petitioner with certain conditions, after keeping its data saved, would not prejudice the case of prosecution. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the mobile is allowed to release to petitioner on supurdgi. 7. As a result, the present criminal Misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.04.2024 is quashed and set aside. The mobile in question is ordered to be released on "Supurdgi" to petitioner till completion of the criminal trial, but on following conditions:- "(a) the petitioner furnishes a supurdgi in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an undertaking to produce the mobile in the Court as and when required to do so. (b) the petitioner shall get the mobile in question photographed, which shall be taken in presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (c) the personal bond of the petitioner shall carry photographs of the petitioner identifying him before the Court with full residential particulars. (d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the mobile in question and not to make any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.