Chhinder Pal Singh vs State of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 575

SANJIV BERRY
Chhinder Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Gaurav Datta Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Surender Singh AAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

Sanjiv Berry, J.

Instant Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC, Sirsa, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for preserving call details record and location of the mobile numbers of the officials from the concerned mobile networking company has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case put forth by the prosecution are that a secret information was received by police that Chhinderpal alias Kewal and Yadvinder Singh, doing business of selling opium, and are standing on Malekan to Malwani Road in front of their Dhani at Malwani road, and if raid is conducted immediately, they can be apprehended with opium. Finding the information reliable, police constituted a raiding party and left for Malwani Road Malekan, where they saw two person standing there and each of them having black coloured polythene bag in their hands. On seeing police party both of them started walking in fast speed, they were apprehended and on their personal search was carried out and recovery of 5kg 500 grams of opium was effected from Yadwinder Singh and 5kg of opium was effected from the petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772: This case explicitly states that "The decision in M P Sharma and in Kharak Singh stands over-ruled". This is a direct indication that the cases M P Sharma and Kharak Singh (referenced within this snippet) have been overruled, making them bad law. However, JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772 itself appears to be the overruling decision (likely Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India), which is good law.

Gurcharan Singh VS State of Punjab - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 1179: Cites multiple cases including "Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan Vs. State of Punjab 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 540" and "Upashu Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 75". This indicates positive or neutral treatment through citation as precedent.

Narendra Kumar Soni S/o Navrang Prasad Vs State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1226: Cites "State of Rajasthan Thro' P.P. reported in 2021 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 844 & Suresh Kumar Vs.". This shows the case is being referenced as relevant precedent.

Sanjiv Kumar vs State Of Haryana - 2025 0 Supreme(P&H) 472: Cites "State of Haryana , 2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 104", "Dinesh @ Kala vs. State of Haryana", a judgment in CRM-M-49513-2023, and "judgment of Kerala High Court in C.Nimith". Multiple citations suggest reliance or approval as supporting authority.

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772: Recognized as establishing good law on the right to privacy, protected under Article 21, with no negative treatment indicated for itself (though it overrules others).

Krishan Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1312: No keywords or phrases indicating treatment (e.g., followed, overruled) by other courts. Describes a factual scenario involving police patrol but lacks context on judicial treatment.

Tarun Sharma @ Vipul VS State Of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1486: Contains procedural discussion ("such a plea of the appellants can be considered by the Court at the stage of") but no explicit treatment indicators for this or other cases.

Gaurav Tyagi vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2579: Discusses procedural matters ("safe custody at the very initial stage of the crime") with no clear treatment language for precedents.