Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Gurdayal Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) against the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar, in Session Case No. 32/2022, whereby the learned trial court erroneously dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 94(1) of BNSS, 2023 seeking call details, CCTV footage, and the log book of police vehicles relevant to the case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, along with co-accused Kaka Singh, was allegedly found in possession of 5 kgs 200 gms of opium milk in an Innova Car (PB-22-R- 1028) near BSF Camp, Sri Ganganagar, on 26.12.2023 at about 9:30 PM. Pursuant to this, an FIR under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered, and the petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused under Sections 8/18 & 29 of the NDPS Act, while the investigation against one Prakash Chandra remained pending under Section 173(8) CrPC.
3. During the trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 94(1) BNSS, 2023, requesting access to call details of police
The court emphasized the necessity of preserving electronic evidence for ensuring a fair trial, ruling that denying access to such evidence hinders the pursuit of truth.
Preserving electronic evidence is essential for ensuring a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the prosecution's case effectively.
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic evidence to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to defend oneself and the necessity of preserving evidence for a fair trial, allowing the summoning of call data records and related documents.
Preserving vital evidence is essential for justice, allowing the accused to summon evidence crucial for their defense even before trial.
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The court ruled that telecom operators must maintain call records for two years, allowing the accused to access evidence through the court under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
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 court emphasized the necessity of preserving electronic evidence for a fair trial, affirming that denying such evidence undermines the right to defend oneself.
The main legal point established is the importance of allowing applications under Section 91 of the Code to obtain vital evidence and ensure the cause of justice.
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
