RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been brought seeking exercise of supervisory jurisdiction for setting-aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No.304/2013, in proceedings of trial and also for direction for conducting an enquiry by independent agency against the prosecution agency for taking frivolous id contrary stands contrary to the official record.

2. It is submitted that one Balai Das lodged one FIR on 07.09.2013 on the basis of which, offence under Section 364, 365 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code were registered against five persons. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. During the investigation, petitioner and two others have been added as an accused for the offence of conspiracy with respect to the commission of alleged crime and Section 120B of I.PC. was also added. It is alleged in the prosecution story, a conspiracy was hatched on 06.09.2013 for kidnapping of one Bittu Rai, who was a witness in previous criminal case with purpose to coerce to retract from the statement earlier given by him before the Court. On the basis of material in the charge-sheet, petitioner has been charged with offence punishable under Section 120-B, 506, 364/34 and Section 365/34 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that petitioner had two mobile numbers bearing subscriber No. 9425532000 and 9329965111, call details of these mobile numbers are relevant in this case to show the location of the petitioner on the date of alleged incident. One of this mobile was seized on 05.09.2013 and second mobile was seized on 07.09.2013, Petitioner relies on the evidence of call details to falsify the case of the prosecution.

3. Petitioner filed an application on 05.11.2015, before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur with prayer to call for the call details of mobile numbers held by him. This application was opposed by the State. This application was rejected by the order dated 23.02.2016 by the trial Court holding that it is the burden of petitioner himself to produce the call details and prove his defence accordingly.

4. Petitioner again filed an application on 14.07.2016 requesting of calling of call details with location with respect to the mobile numbers possessed by him, which was again opposed by the prosecution, which has not been decided by the trial Court and the application has been kept pending to be heard on 08.08.2016 and 09.08.2016 along with recording of evidence of prosecution.

5. It is submitted that Ratneshwar Rao (P.W.-4) has stated that accused Uttam talked with petitioner on mobile phone. Sub-Inspector, Mohd. Kalim Khan (P.W.-14) in this case has also stated in his cross-examination that he has made use of the call details of the mobile number to find out the location. Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.K. Sasikala v. State Rep. by Superintendent of Police AIR 2013 SC 613, in which it was held that mandatory duty is cast on the investigating agency to conduct fair investigation. Document submitted in the Court along with report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. ought to be disclosed to the accused if demanded as it is required for the doctrine of free and fair trial, placing specific reliance on para-17 of the judgment, which is quoted as under :-

"17. The issue that has emerged before us is, therefore, somewhat larger than what has been projected by the State and what has been dealt with by the High Court. The question arising would no longer be one of compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and would travel beyond the confines of the strict language of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and touch upon the larger doctrine of a free and fair trial that has been painstakingly built up by the courts on a purposive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not the stage of making of the request, th