1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging dismissal of application under Section 94 BNSS for summoning electronic evidence in NDPS case. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 479
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Jasveer Singh S/o Resham Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9679 of 2025
Decided On : 18-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Nagda
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Nagda
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Electronic evidence, such as CDR and CCTV footage, is considered "best evidence" for ensuring a fair trial. If such evidence is available, it must be preserved. If it is withheld or deleted despite timely demand, the court should draw an adverse inference under Section 119 of BSA.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 94 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/18 and 25 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 119 - Summoning of electronic evidence - Call Detail Records (CDR), tower locations, and CCTV footage - Preservation of evidence - If an accused seeks summoning of electronic evidence to elicit the truth and effectively defend himself, such prayer should not be lightly rejected - Summoning or directing preservation of such material does not amount to prematurely taking defence evidence, but is a step to protect evidence from destruction (Paras 4.1, 4.6).
(B) Rule of Best Evidence - Electronic records, such as CCTV footage, capturing events in real time, may constitute the most reliable and objective form of proof - Where the best available evidence is withheld or allowed to disappear, the Court may draw an adverse inference under Section 119 of BSA (corresponding to Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872) that the evidence, if produced, would have been unfavourable to the party withholding it (Paras 4.2, 4.5).
Facts of the case:
In a prosecution for offences under the NDPS Act involving recovery of opium from a vehicle, the accused moved an application to summon call detail records and tower locations of the arresting police officials, CCTV footage of a toll plaza, and toll receipts. The trial court dismissed the application, leading the accused to challenge the order before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that electronic evidence is not merely ancillary but goes to the root of the case and can test the veracity of the prosecution's version. Given the limited retention period for telecom and CCTV data, such evidence must be summoned and preserved to prevent the loss of truth.
Issues: Whether the trial court should have allowed the summoning and preservation of electronic records at a premature stage of trial and the legal consequences of such evidence being unavailable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that preserving electronic evidence is essential for a fair trial and does not constitute premature evidence collection. Electronic records often represent the "best evidence"; therefore, if such evidence is unavailable or deleted despite a timely request, the court must apply the doctrine of adverse inference against the party who failed to produce it.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the trial court to summon and preserve evidence if available, or otherwise draw an adverse inference under Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences relating to narcotic drugs
-
ndps act
- offences under sections 8/18 and 25 (Para 2)
-
ndps act
-
offences relating to narcotic drugs
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Disposed of; trial court to summon and preserve evidence if available, else consider adverse inference under Section 119, BSA. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. By way of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu, in Sessions Case No. 27/2024, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 94 BNSS and declined the prayer for summoning material evidence, namely, mobile call detail records and tower locations of the concerned police officials, CCTV footage of Tidiyasar Toll Naka, and toll receipt of the Scorpio vehicle in question.
2. Succinctly stated, the factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that on 07.04.2024 at about 1:51 a.m., a police party headed by Shri Pyarelal, along with other officials, departed from the police station for patrolling and naka bandi. During the course of such blockade near Gusaisar-Hardesar Fanta on National Highway No. 11, a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13- UB-0708 was intercepted at approximately 2:40 a.m. The occupants of the vehicle allegedly attempted to flee but were apprehended. Upon inquiry and subsequent search, a black plastic bag containing 420 grams of opium was recovered. After compliance with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, including intimation under Section 42(2) and notice under Section 50, the contraband was seized and FIR No. 120/2024 came to be registered at Police Station Ratangarh for offences under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act.
2.1. Upon culmination of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, for offences under Sections 8/18 and 25 of the NDPS Act. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application under Section 94 BNSS on 03.06.2025 seeking summoning of certain material evidence, specifically the call detail records and tower locations of the police officials involved, CCTV footage of Tidiyasar Toll Naka, and toll receipt pertaining to the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The said application was opposed by the prosecution; however, no written reply was filed. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application vide order dated 19.08.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the material available on record, including the order impugned.
4. Upon thoughtful consideration, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present matter is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively governed by judicial precedents rendered by this Court, particularly in Chotha Ram & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Savitri Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
4.1. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by this Court in Chotha Ram & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3672/2023, decided on 04.03.2023), wherein this Court elaborately dealt with the issue of summoning and preservation of electronic evidence, especially call detail records and tower location data. The Court, in the said judgment, emphasized that where an accused seeks summoning of electronic evidence with a view to elicit the truth and to effectively defend himself, such a prayer ought not to be lightly rejected. The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder:-
“11. This Court feels that if for the purpose of reserving and saving the right of the accused and for the sake of justice, if a prayer is made to summon the electronic evidence so as to elicit the truth behind the story, then such prayer ought not to have been declined. When the assertion is made that what is wrong may be proved to be wrong and vice-versa in the end so that the oil and truth must come out, then the defence must be given an opportunity because not giving an opportun
