1. Trial for offences under IPC Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34, and 506 — Application for preservation of Call Data Records and CCTV footage of prosecution witnesses. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1486
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Tarun Sharma @ Vipul And Another - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 17319 of 2024)
Decided on : 03-01-2025
The Supreme Court held that accused persons may seek preservation of Call Data Records (CDRs) before the defense evidence stage if the mandatory preservation period is likely to expire, preventing prejudice to the accused, while the Trial Court retains the authority to determine the evidence's relevance later.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34, and 506 - Preservation of Call Data Records and CCTV footage - The appellants sought preservation of evidence relating to witnesses, claiming potential prejudice if the records expired before they could present their defense - The Trial Court and High Court rejected the plea, maintaining it could be considered when the defense presents its case - The Supreme Court emphasized that preserving the records is essential to prevent prejudice, since their destruction could impact the trial's fairness. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Right to a fair trial - The court highlighted that preserving potential evidence does not harm the prosecution or complainant while safeguarding the defense's ability to present its case fairly. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants are facing serious charges and argued for the urgent preservation of relevant Call Data Records during the ongoing trial, which has yet to reach the defense stage.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overriding the lower courts' decisions, and mandated the preservation of specific CDRs until their relevance could be assessed by the Trial Court.
Issues: The main issues were whether the request for evidence preservation was valid at this stage of the trial and the implications of such preservation on the trial's fairness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that allowing preservation of CDRs is crucial to prevent prejudice to the appellants in the trial, highlighting the balance between the rights of the defense and the prosecution's interests.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants seek early preservation due to TRAI data retention limits — State contends such requests are maintainable only during the defense evidence stage. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Preservation of potentially relevant records prevents prejudice to the accused, while the prosecution suffers no harm if relevance is determined at a later stage. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Records subject to mandatory deletion periods should be preserved to prevent prejudice to the accused, leaving the determination of relevance to the appropriate trial stage. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside — Mobile companies directed to preserve specified Call Data Records. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can an accused seek preservation of electronic records before the defense evidence stage?
Yes, if records are subject to mandatory deletion periods, they may be preserved to prevent prejudice to the accused, with the trial court determining their relevance at a later stage. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 11 )
7. Does the mere preservation of records grant an undue advantage to the accused?
No, the preservation of records does not accrue any undue advantage, as the trial court retains the authority to determine the actual relevance of such evidence at the appropriate stage. (Para 11 )
8. How do TRAI preservation rules affect the timing of evidence requests in criminal trials?
Because TRAI rules limit CDR preservation to two years, waiting until the defense evidence stage may lead to the destruction of evidence, justifying early preservation orders to avoid prejudice. (Para 4 , 7 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the appellants, who are facing trial under Sections 302 , 147, 148, 149, 34 and 506 of the IPC, are entitled to seek preservation of the Call Data Records ('CDRs'), with tower location etc./CCTV footage, of the prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, for the period of 14.01.2023 to 20.01.2023.
3. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have turned down the appellants' prayer primarily on the ground that such a plea will be maintainable at the time when they will lead their defence evidence.
4. On the other hand, the case of the appellants is that as per the Rules framed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ('TRAI'), the mobile companies are obligated to preserve the CDRs for a period of two years only, and since the relevant period is from 14.01.2023 to 20.01.2023, the mandatory period for preservation will expire soon. Admittedly, the trial is still at the prosecution evidence stage and it necessarily follows that by the time the appellants will have their turn to lead evidence; the prescribed period shall stand expired.
5. Learned State counsel reiterates the submission that such a plea of the appellants can be considered by the Court at the stage of defence evidence alone.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed on record.
7. It seems to us that if, in the due course of events, it is found that the CDRs which the appellants seek to preserve have a direct bearing on the merits of the case, they are likely to be prejudiced in the pending trial, as the mobile companies would have already destroyed the relevant records.
8. On the other hand, if the mobile companies are directed to preserve the CDRs, thereby leaving it open for the Trial Court to determine the relevance of such records at an appropriate stage, no prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution or to the complainant.
9. Consequently, we allow this appeal; set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; and we also set aside order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the Trial Court.
10. We further direct the mobile companies, the details whereof are mentioned in the application dated 12.12.2023, moved by the appellants before the Trial Court, to preserve the CDRs of the witnesses, whose requisite details are also appended to the aforestated application. The CDRs shall be produced before the Trial Court as and when summoned, in accordance with law.
11. It goes without saying that the relevance of such evidence shall be determined by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage, and mere preservation of the records shall not accrue any undue advantage to the appellants.
