KESHAV GANDHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing/setting aside the order dtd. 5/1/2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Case No. NDPS/61/2025 arising out of FIR No. 200 dtd. 27/7/2025 under Ss. 22-C and 27-A of the NDPS Act (Sec. 27-A of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Julana, District Jind, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for preserving and producing the call detail record, tower location, timeline, IMEI/IMSI details, movement and connectivity logs of the official mobile numbers of PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-7 for the period dtd. 27/7/2025 has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was moved by accused Keshav Gandhi before the learned trial Court seeking directions for preserving and producing the call detail report (CDR), tower location, timeline, movement and connectivity logs of the official mobile numbers of PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-7, as mentioned in the list of witnesses. In the said application, it was pleaded that the accused had been in illegal custody from about 12:13 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and though as per the prosecution case he was apprehended at 4:30 p.m., in fact he had remained in police custody prior thereto. It was, therefore, contended that in order to establish the plea of illegal confinement, it was necessary to call for and preserve the CDR and location details of the police witnesses concerned. In reply to the said application, the prosecution filed its response opposing the prayer. It was contended that the application was based on mere assumptions and the Court could not embark upon a roving inquiry. The prosecution further stated that the call details of the police officials were not relevant for the adjudication of the case and that merely to create evidence in favour of the accused, the Court could not permit intrusion into the privacy of police officials qua the use of their mobile phones. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, after considering the rival submissions, vide impugned order dtd. 5/1/2026, dismissed the application. The learned trial Court observed that the issue sought to be raised by the accused was a matter of trial and that compliance of procedural requirements would be examined during evidence. It was further held that preservation of call records of the police officials for establishing alleged illegal confinement was not warranted at that stage and that the Court could not permit breach of privacy of the officials concerned. Consequently, the application for preserving and producing the call detail records and related data was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dtd. 5/1/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is submitted that the petitioner has consistently taken a specific plea that he was kept in illegal custody by the police officials from about 12:13 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on 27/7/2025 and that the alleged recovery has been falsely planted upon him. According to the petitioner, though the prosecution claims that he was apprehended at 4:30 p.m., his own mobile phone location, as reflected in the CDR already forming part of the challan, shows continuous presence at Julana during the relevant period and further indicates that the phone was put on airplane mode or switched off, thereby supporting his plea of illegal detention.