The Court has the power to order a person to give voice samples for investigation of a crime, even in the absence of specific provisions in the CrPC, until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code by Parliament.

CRL.M.C. 1534/2018

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 29^thNovember, 2023

Judgment delivered on:7^thDecember, 2023

+

CRL.M.C. 1534/2018

SANJIV KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Ms. Urvashi

Sharma, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for

State.

SI Vikrant, PS ARSC, Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) impugning (i) the order dated 1^stMay,

2015 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the application filed on

behalf of the prosecution for taking voice samples of the petitioner has been

allowed and (ii) the order dated 5^thMay, 2017 passed by learned ASJ,

whereby the appeal/revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid

order of the learned Magistrate has been dismissed.

2.

Notice in the present matter was issued vide order dated 23^rdMarch,

2018 passed by the predecessor Bench. While issuing notice, the operation

Digitally Signed By:DINESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:07.12.2023

14:21:31

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 1534/2018

Page 2 of 10

of the order dated 1^stMay, 2015, passed by the learned Magistrate was

stayed and the aforesaid stay has continued till date.

3.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are set out

below:-

3.1.

The present FIR No. 59/2015 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 was

registered against the petitioner on the basis of a ‘technical surveillance’,

whereby the phone of the petitioner was intercepted. On the basis of the

aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested, along with the other co-accused

persons. Subsequently, bail was granted to the petitioner.

3.2.

During the proceedings before the Trial Court, the prosecution moved

an application for taking voice samples of the petitioner which was allowed

by the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 1^stMay, 2015.

3.3.

The appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the said order was

dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 5^thMay, 2017.

4.

The aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the

present petition.

5.

In the Status Report filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that

through a ‘technical surveillance’ it came to light that the petitioner hatched

a criminal conspiracy to murder one person named Tikka. In this regard, the

petitioner contacted one Shaukat Pasha, who was a gangster lodged in the

Central Tihar Jail at that point of time. The petitioner and Shaukat Pasha

hired some contract killers including Asad, Aftab and Tofeek towards

executing the aforesaid conspiracy.

6.

Four accused persons being the petitioner, Shaukat Pasha, Mannan,

and Tofeek were arrested. Subsequently they were granted bail. On 26^th

Digitally Signed By:DINESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:07.12.2023

14:21:31

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 1534/2018

Page 3 of 10

November, 2016, accused Shaukat Pasha was killed in an encounter with the

Uttar Pradesh Police.

7.

The voice samples of the accused persons, Shaukat Pasha and Tofeek,

were obtained by the respondent. However, the voice samples of the

petitioner could not be obtained due to the stay order passed in the present

petition.

8.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following

submissions:-

I.

In the present case, the ‘technical surveillance’ carried out by the

respondent was not in accordance with relevant provisions of The

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act). In this regard, he places

reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in People’s Union for

Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, as well

as the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C.

3118/2012

titled

Jitender

Pal

Singh

v.

Central

Bureau

of

Investigation.

II.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment of the