The preservation of Call Detail Records is essential for ensuring fair trial rights without interfering with the prosecution's case, and the order is interlocutory, thus not subject to revision.

ORDER :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)], challenging the order dated 12^th July, 2023 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “Trial Court”), whereby, the learned Trial Court directed the preservation of Call Detail Records (hereinafter “CDR”) and location data of CBI officials and independent witnesses in connection with FIR No. RC-DAI-2022-A-0032, registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter “PC Act”).

2. The case arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant, Ashok Kumar before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, alleging that the respondent Neeraj Kumar (Junior Engineer, MCD) and co-accused Sukhdev (Beldar, MCD) demanded a bribe of Rs. 7,000/- to allow him to store construction materials outside his shop.

3. Based on the complaint, the CBI, which is the petitioner herein, conducted verification proceedings on 2^nd June, 2022 and 6^th June, 2022, following which a trap operation was conducted on 6^th June, 2022, leading to the arrest of Sukhdev, who was caught red-handed accepting the bribe on behalf of the respondent allegedly. According to the chargesheet, the respondent was arrested on 6^th June, 2022 and was released on bail on 23^rd June, 2022.

4. During the course of the trial proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Section 207 of the CrPC read with Section 91 of the CrPC, seeking copies of unrelied statements and documents arguing that access to such documents cannot be denied merely because the prosecution deems them irrelevant. The respondent also sought preservation of CDRs and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses, contending that such records could be crucial for his defence.

5. The learned Trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 12^th July, 2023, directing the preservation of CDRs and location data for specific dates related to the verification and trap proceedings on the ground that it was necessary to safeguard accused person‟s right to a fair trial ensuring that the relevant records remain available if required at the appropriate stage of proceedings.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the same.

7. Learned SPP appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the primary objective of a trial is to uncover the truth and the Court cannot aid the accused in formulating a speculative defence as it would violate the principles of a fair trial and due process. It is further submitted that while the prosecution bears the burden of proof, the accused is expected to either present a truthful version or remain silent rather than fabricate a defence after reviewing prosecution documents.

8. It is submitted that the respondent has neither raised a specific defence in any application nor identified any particular documents in the possession of the petitioner that would support his case. It is further submitted that since the stage of arguments on charge has not yet reached, such a request is premature and legally untenable.

9. It is submitted that the respon