Preservation of CDRs and Location Charts Before Framing of Charges Permissible Under Section 94 BNSS: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has clarified a significant procedural matter regarding the rights of an accused person to ensure the preservation of evidence. Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that an application seeking the preservation of Call Detail Records (CDR) and location charts by an accused, even at the pre-charge stage, is maintainable and distinct from a request for the production of documents.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Evidence Preservation

The petitioner, Mangal Singh, was apprehended in connection with an FIR under the NDPS Act (Case No. 206/2024). During the pre-charge stage of his trial, Singh moved an application before the Special Judge (NDPS) at Patiala House Courts under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to preserve the CDRs and location charts of the raiding team and the Duty Officer.

The trial court dismissed the application, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi , reasoning that the demand for documents at the pre-charge stage was "premature." The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the data would be lost after a period of one year due to telecom company deletion policies, causing irreparable prejudice to his right to a fair defense.

Distinguishing Production from Preservation

The central point of contention was whether the principles governing the production of documents (which the Supreme Court limited to the trial stage in Padhi ) also apply to a mere preservation request.

The State, represented by the learned APP, argued that granting such requests could compromise the safety of police investigators and expose confidential informers. However, the High Court disagreed with the trial court’s blanket rejection. Justice Dudeja observed:

> "The petitioner, by virtue of his application under Section 94 BNSS, 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."

Key Observations

The High Court emphasized that the right to fair trial necessitates the safeguarding of data that may become essential later. Key takeaways from the judgment include:

• The Padhi Distinction: The court clarified that Debendra Nath Padhi dealt with the accused's right to summon documents to prove innocence before charges are framed, which is not the same as requesting the court to secure evidence that might otherwise be destroyed.
• Preventing Irreparable Loss: The court noted, "The Court is of the view that if such data is not preserved, there is likelihood that the same may get lost and may not be available to the petitioner in support of his defence."
• Balancing Concerns: Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in * Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India *, the High Court held that the interest of justice is satisfied by ordering preservation while ensuring that sensitive information, such as the numbers of confidential informers, is protected or "blacked out" at the stage of production.

A Safeguard for Fair Trial

By setting aside the trial court's order, the Delhi High Court has reinforced that procedural bars on document production at the pre-charge stage cannot be used as a pretext to allow the destruction of time-sensitive evidence.

While the order grants the petitioner’s plea for preservation, it maintains the protective balance for investigating agencies. The practical effect of this ruling is that suspects in criminal matters—particularly those involving police recovery where location and communication logs are contested—now have a clear path to ensure that critical digital evidence remains intact for when the trial officially commences. The decision serves as a reminder that the "pre-charge" stage should not be viewed as an absolute barrier to the protection of potential evidence.