The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Precise submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 155 dated 04.04.2023, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act , 1985. He submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for directing the Telecom Agencies through Investigating Officer to preserve the CDRs and tower locations of mobile numbers of raiding team, special officer in whose presence the alleged contraband was recovered and of the petitioner himself. He submits that the record pertaining to the HDFC Bank and NHAI CCTV footage were given up during the pendency of the said application. He submits that the petitioner is a taxi driver, who runs his own car in taxi to earn his livelihood, however, he has been falsely implicated by the Investigating Agency in collusion with the NCB Ambala. He submits that vehicle bearing registration No.HR-05-AK-2409 of the petitioner crossed the Sanwara toll plaza on 04.04.2023 at 4:30 a.m. to 4:35 a.m. and Chandi Mandir toll plaza on 04.04.2023 at 05:06 a.m. to 05:10 a.m. He submits that on 04.04.2023 at 06:00 a.m. he was very much at his hometown Naraingarh, when he was apprehended by some person and kept apprehended till 01:20 p.m. It is submitted that in order to prove his innocence, it is necessary to bring the CDRs and tower location on the Court file of the persons who remained connected with the present case, which are material piece of evidence for the just and fair decision of the present case. It is further submitted that admissibility of the electronic record in criminal trial is not under dispute as his evident from Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act . He has relied upon the judgments in Suresh Kumar vs. Union of India , 2015(3) RCR (Criminal) 340; Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Haryana , 2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 104 and Dinesh @ Kala vs. State of Haryana , passed in CRR-1732-2023 on 31.07.2024. He, thus, submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the law settled and thus, has illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 08.05.2024, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

3. However, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. It is submitted that providing call details of the members of Investigating team would prejudice their security and privacy and thus, would adversely affect the prosecution case. He relied upon judgment of this Court in Parveen Kumar vs. State of Haryana , passed in CRM-M-49513-2023 on 03.10.2023 and judgment of Kerala High Court in C.Nimith vs. State of Kerala , in Crl.MC No.4492 of 2014 decided on 18.08.2014. He, thus, submits that the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The precise submission made by counsel for the petitioner is for preserving the call details and CCTV footage. As contended the petitioner had been illegally arrested in the present case, as at the relevant time, he was in his hometown and not at the place from where his arrest was shown by the prosecution. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the same has been declined primarily on the ground that preserving the call details of the raiding party would expose and put life of the Investigators to risk and it would