AJAY NOGARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.270/2019 whereby the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected, wherein the call details of the mobile numbers of the present applicant-Ajay and the other co-accused Monu were sought to be called, as according to the applicant, when the incident took place on 24.3.2019 he was not present on the spot.

(2.) In the aforesaid application, the CCTV footage of the Shankh Dwar Mahakaal Mandir and Harsiddhi Mandir dated 24.3.2019 between 6 to 7 p.m. has also been sought. The said application of the applicant has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that no reason has been assigned as to why the call details are being sought. So far as the record of the CCTV footage is concerned, it is submitted that the distance from the place of incident i.e., Harsiddhi Mandir to Shankh Dwar, Mahakaal Mandir is hardly at a distance of 200 meters from where the incident took place and it takes only a minute to reach hence there is no need to call for the record of CCTV footage also.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the call details as well as tower locations of the mobile numbers of the present applicant-Ajay and the other co-accused Monu are necessary for their defence and it is submitted that the CCTV footage is equally important as at the time of the incident the applicant was at Shank Dwar Mahakaal Mandir. Thus, counsel has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.