Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Gaurav Tyagi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA.
2. By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 19.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Case No.1739 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.86 of 2018, under Section 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad as well as order dated 13.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No.258 of 2024.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at the time of seeking bail, petitioner had preferred an application at the very initial stage i.e. on dated 14.03.2018 through which specific prayer was made for collection of CDR and location of concerned police personnels since the allegation which has been put forward under which the petitioner was implicated, was only on the basis of phone calls which has been made from certain police personnels to the petitioner, whereupon he responded in shape of appearing himself at the place of alleged occurrence, otherwise it is the defence taken up by petitioner that he was not involved in the matter which culminated in
Gaurav Tyagi Vs. State Of U.P. Through It Chief Secretary Home And Another - 2025 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 197: The provided text describes a magistrate court decision or order in Case No.1739 of 2023 (arising from Case Crime No.86 of 2018) involving Sections 379 and 411 IPC. It mentions procedural details such as an application for safe custody of evidence kept pending, which compelled the petitioner to file another application. No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, abrogated) are present. The snippet appears to be an excerpt from the case itself or a citing decision discussing its facts/proceedings, with no clear indication of how this case has been treated. Categorized as uncertain due to complete absence of treatment indicators.
The court emphasized the right to present evidence in defense, allowing an extension for the petitioner to lead digital evidence despite challenges regarding its preservation.
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The court established that electronic records, including mobile tower locations, are admissible as evidence and essential for a fair trial.
The preservation and exposure of call detail records (CDRs) and location chart of the raiding party should be carefully considered to ensure the safety of the officers and their informers, and the de....
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic evidence to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.
Preserving electronic evidence is essential for ensuring a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the prosecution's case effectively.
Accused can summon CDRs to establish innocence, preservation of CDRs for scrutiny, admissibility of electronic records subject to Evidence Act provisions
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
