PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving the calls details records with location chart of Mobile was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the husband of the petitioner namely Satnam Singh @ Sattu had made a complaint against the police officials on 12/9/2020 and on account of his complaint, police started nurturing a grudge against the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was arrested and 4 grams 85 miligrams of heroin was planted on him and FIR No.1090 dtd. 3/12/2021 under Sec. 21 of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a categoric stand that her husband was lifted from her house in village Peerawali on 3/12/2021 at 10 AM in the presence of co-villagers and the recovery of the alleged contraband was shown at a different location. The petitioner had moved an application under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for issuance of necessary direction to preserve the call details and tower location details of the police officials at the relevant point of time. The call details and the tower locations are extremely vital for proving that husband of the petitioner was not arrested at the time and place alleged by the investigating agency. Any denial of these details would seriously prejudice the case of husband of the petitioner to prove his innocence. Moreover, the electronic record is admissible in terms of Ss. 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Court has not considered the issue in right earnest rather rejected the application filed by the petitioner in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason.

(3.) Per contra, learned State Counsel contends that production of the call details and the tower location of the police officials would expose the secret informers, who help the investigating agency in intercepting the anti-social elements and these details cannot be made available for public in routine matter. It would put the witnesses in danger also and the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner on cogent grounds.