Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Narendra Kumar Soni S/o Navrang Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. – Respondent
What is the standard for admissibility and preservation of electronic records under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in relation to call details/tower locations as evidence in a fair trial? What is the balance between the right to privacy of police officials and the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 in the context of preserving mobile tower/location data? What are the directions or conditions for summoning and preserving mobile tower locations of witnesses, including any requirements to black out calling numbers, as affirmed by this Court?
Key Points: - The court directs preserving mobile locations of two witnesses (Sonu Meena, Jitender Meena) and partially allows the petition (!) (!) . - It acknowledges electronic records are admissible under Sections 65A/65B and requires a certificate under 65B(4) for admissibility (!) . - It cites Suresh Kumar v. Union of India (2014) to permit summoning call details/tower locations with privacy protections like blacking out calling numbers (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s application under 91 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed; preservation ordered for complainant and Investigating Officer, but not for two witnesses in earlier order (!) (!) . - The Court emphasizes balancing Article 21 rights with police privacy, allowing necessary preservation to ensure fair trial while protecting privacy to an extent (!) (!) . - The final directive: summon tower locations for specific mobile numbers for a specified time window, with numbers blacked out in the supplied details (!) . - The judgment references Kapil v. State of Rajasthan and Suresh Kumar for precedent on 91 Cr.P.C. usage and privacy considerations (!) (!) . - The court’s conclusion: petition disposed of with directions to preserve and summon certain tower locations; no order on costs (!) (!) . - The case discusses trap proceedings and the alleged non-presence of witnesses, justifying the need for location data to verify facts (!) (!) . - The order ultimately directs specific tower location preservation for two witnesses with a defined time frame, and blacking out numbers in the material furnished by telecom companies (!) .
Order :
1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota whereby she had partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the tower locations of the witnesses of the trap proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely booked in an anti-corruption case. Counsel submits that in fact no trap proceedings were conducted on 10.03.2023 and presence of the two witnesses, namely, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena has been incorrectly mentioned/ incorporated in the trap proceedings. Counsel submits that these witnesses were not present and at the time of alleged proceedings even then, their presence has been shown at the place of alleged occurrence. Counsel submits that as per the footage of the CCTV camera, only three persons, namely, the petitioner, brother of the complainant and one unknown person were present while neither the trap party nor these two above witnesses were present. Counsel submits that in order to verify the aforesaid fact, an application was submitted under Section 91
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic records to ensure a fair trial, balancing privacy rights against the accused's right to access evidence.
The court established that electronic records, including mobile tower locations, are admissible as evidence and essential for a fair trial.
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails over privacy concerns, necessitating the production of evidence under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials and the relevance of obtaining mobile tower location records to establish the location o....
Preserving electronic evidence is essential for ensuring a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the prosecution's case effectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accused persons are entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court has the jurisdiction to direc....
The accused has the right to access call detail record and tower location record to build up their defense from the early stages of the trial, as established in the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
