The court ruled that requests for evidence must be substantiated and not based on mere assumptions, emphasizing the importance of privacy for police officials.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(c) and 61 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 and 91 - Quashing of lower court's dismissal of application for call detail records to establish defense - Court found call detail records irrelevant and cautioned against infringing on police privacy. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

(B) Application under Section 91 - Not sufficient to support an assumption; judicial inquiries should not be roving or speculative - No entitlement to access police official's mobile details just for the sake of possibility. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order dismissing a request for call detail records allegedly held by a police witness, which the petitioner claimed could prove he was arrested separately from co-accused.

Findings of Court:
Dismissal of the application was upheld as there was no illegality or impropriety in the lower court's decision.

Issues: The court addressed whether call detail records of a police official could be necessary and relevant for the defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assumption of relevance regarding call details does not warrant a breach of privacy and highlighted the need for concrete evidence rather than speculative inquiries.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. quashing petition based on evidence requisition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. privacy concerns limit evidence scope. (Para 3 , 4)
3. final dismissal of petition. (Para 5)

Judgment

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in FIR No.61 dated 04.03.2022 registered under Sections 20 (C) & 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bass, District Hisar, whereby the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving the call detail record given in the application, has been dismissed; along with certain other prayers.

2. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had tried to get the call detail record of the police official, who is cited as witness of recovery from the petitioner. The assumption of the petitioner is that the police official might be having his mobile phone with him at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested. If the call details regarding that mobile phone are brought on record then the fact can be proved by the petitioner in defence that he was not arrested with the co-accused, rather, he was arrested from a different place.

3. In considered view of this court; just to give credence to the assumption of the petitioner this court cannot go into the roving inquiries. Otherwise also, the call detail of the police official is not relevant as such. Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore, just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner; court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones.

4. In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the court below, whereby the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document