STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.1.2019, passed by the Special Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., camp at Bilaspur, whereby an application under Section 91 CPC, having been filed by the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to "the accused"), for issuing direction to the petitioner-State to take into possession and preserve all the CCTV footage of the CCTV cameras installed in the Police Station Ghumarwin, State Bank of Patiala, branch Ghumarwin, HP State Co-operative Bank, Kuthera/Massaur and Ghumarwin-Kuthera Chowk as well as call details of mobile numbers 98058-82219, 98162-21495, 78071-95536, 98572-14434, 94598- 14305 and 88940-74481, came to be allowed, petitioner-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned order.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent - accused, against whom, FIR bearing No. 50/18 dated 16.3.2018, under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, came to be lodged at the PS Ghumarwin, filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC, before the court below, praying therein to issue direction to the petitioner-State to take into consideration and preserve all the CCTV footage of the CCTV cameras installed at the places mentioned herein above as well as call details of the mobile numbers, mentioned hereinabove, along with tower locations. The accused averred in the application that they have been falsely implicated in the criminal case vide FIR referred herein above. He further averred that entire story narrated by the police in the FIR detailed herein above, is concocted one because on 15.3.2018, at about 10:00 pm, police in civil dress came to nearby their house at village Khalian and took him, his brother in law namely Bablu and his wife Smt. Sony Bodh to the police Station Ghumarwin for investigation. Accused averred in the application that if CCTV cameras installed at aforementioned places are perused/preserved, it would be ample clear that they have been falsely implicated. Accused in the application also averred that call details of mobile Nos. 98527-14434 and 94598-14305 of Mahender Singh constable and Sh. Sher Singh SHO for the period starting from 15.3.2018 to 17.3.2018 would bring the truth to the fore. Accused averred that he and his wife time and again requested the SHO Ghumarwin to preserve the CCTV footage of CCTV cameras installed in the areas referred herein above, but no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the SHO, as a consequence of which, he was compelled to file petition (Cr.MMO No. 427 of 2018) before High Court of Himachal Pradesh, wherein this Court directed the accused to move appropriate application before the trial Court and as such, application under Section 91 Cr.PC came to be filed before the competent Court of law. Application as referred herein above filed on behalf of the accused came to be resisted by the respondents, who raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability and claimed that there is no specific provision, if any, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, where such application can be filed. Petitioner-State averred in the reply that at 3:45am, accused alongwtih one Sh. Bablu son of Sh. Jai Ram, were found in conscious possession of the Charas weighing 5.031 kg on 16.3.2018, at a place called Massour Mod and it cannot be said that they have been falsely implicated. Petitioner State further stated in the reply that court at this stage has no power to direct the concerned person to preserve and give the CCTV footage because investigation is already complete and charge-sheet stands filed in the month of September, 2018. Petitioner-State specifically denied the allegation that accused have been falsely implicated under some criminal conspiracy hatched by the police.

(3.) Learned trial Court having taken note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI in Crl.M.C. No. 2143 of 2015, dated 22.5.2015, allowed the application and directed the petitioner-State to take into possession and preserve all CCTV footage of CCTV cameras installed at the places mentioned in the application. Court below also directed the petitioner-State to furnish call details of mobile phone numbers, detail whereof has been given herein above. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner-State has approached this court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein quashment of impugned order being contrary to the facts as well as law.