Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing order passed by Special Judge in FIR under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) whereby his application seeking preservation of Call Detail Records (‘CDRs’) and location charts of the petitioner, the Duty Officer and the members of the raiding team involved at the time of the alleged recovery, seizure and sampling, was dismissed. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., held that there was no embargo on production of CDRs/Location Charts before the Court at an appropriate stage while taking precautions for safety and privacy of raiding team and police informers. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the said order.
Background
In the present case, based on secret information, the co-accused was apprehended and 5.2 kgs of opium was recovered from his bag. Upon his disclosure statement, other co-accused was apprehended, and from his possession, 50.355 kgs of opium was recovered and upon his disclosure, the petitioner was apprehended and 25.180 kgs of opium was recovered from him.
The petitioner then filed an application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) before the Trial Court seeking preservation of CDRs and location charts of petitioner, members of the raiding team and Duty Officer. The said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court.
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court had failed to consider that he had not sought the production of the CDR and the location charts but only prayed for preservation of the same as the said data were maintained with the telecom companies only for two years, and therefore unless preserved, they would be automatically deleted. Per contra, the respondent argued that Section 94 BNSS did not give any right to the accused to approach the Court at the pre-defense stage and relied upon State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.
Analysis and Decision
The Court pointed that by virtue of his application under Section 94 BNSS, the petitioner did not seek the production of the documents before the Court but merely sought the preservation of the CDRs and the location charts so that the said data does not get lost in terms of Notification of the Department of Telecommunication. Further, the Court stated that there was no embargo on the production of CDRs and location charts before the Court at an appropriate stage while taking necessary precautions regarding the safety and privacy of the members of the raiding team and the police informers.
The Court emphasized that if the said data was not preserved, then there was likelihood that the same could get lost and would not be available to the petitioner in support of his defense. Thus, the Court held that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that it was ‘premature’. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The Court further directed preservation of the CDRs and location charts of the petitioner, Investigating Officer, Duty Officer, and the other members of the raiding team, involved at the time of the alleged recovery by the respective service providers.
[Mangal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. No. 6172 of 2025, decided on 10-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sumer Singh Boparai, Surya Pratap Singh, Abhilash Kumar Pathak, Sirhaan Seth, Shubham Raj Anand, Advs.
For the Respondent: Taran Srivastav, APP