The court held that preservation of critical evidence like Call Detail Records is necessary to safeguard the defendant's rights, despite pre-charge limitations on document production.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking quashing of order dated 16.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in case FIR No. 206/2024, PS Special Cell, under Section 18 & 29 of the NDPS Act , whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner seeking preservation of Call Detail Records [“CDR”] and Location Chart (s) of the petitioner, the Duty Officer and the members of the raiding team involved at the time of the alleged recovery, seizure and sampling was dismissed.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Jagdeep Singh was apprehended near Singhu Border and 5.2 kgs. of opium was recovered from his bag. Thereafter, on his disclosure statement, co-accused Shamsher Singh was apprehended, and from his possession, 50.355 kgs. of opium was recovered.

3. Subsequently, on 16.05.2025, on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Shamsher Singh, the present petitioner was apprehended near M.R. Logistic Park, Sonepat along with a truck, from which, 25.180 kgs. of opium was recovered.

4. Petitioner filed an application under Section 94 BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 91 Cr. PC) before the trial court seeking preservation of CDRs and location charts of petitioner, members of the raiding team and Duty Officer. The application came be dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2025. The relevant para of the order reads thus:-

“10. As far as maintainability of the present application is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that as far as section 94 BNSS, 2023 is concerned, the width of the powers provided under the said section are unlimited, however, there is inbuilt inherent limitations as to the stage and the point of time of its exercise, commensurately with the nature of proceedings, has also with respect to the compulsion of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task and achieve the object. The said power cannot be exercised at the stage prior to framing of charges, i.e. when the trial has not even begun. The reliance of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused on the case laws referred by him are misplaced, since the stage of entertaining the said application u/s 94 BNSS, 2023 (91 CrPC) has been settled by the decision of the three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi , Crl Appeal No. 497/2001, date of decision 29.11.2004". Since, the said judgment is of the larger bench and is also prior in time, the case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused in Suresh Kumar (supra) shall not be applicable. Furthermore, in Swarn Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had relied upon its earlier larger bench

decision of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) and held that application u/s 91 CrPC, 1973 (now 94 BNSS, 2023 ) cannot be filed at the stage of framing of charge. Hence, the present application is pre-mature and is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed and disposed off accordingly.”

5. Notice of the petition was issued to the State through learned APP. Learned APP filed the status report, which is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court failed to consider that the petitioner did not seek the production of the CDR and the location charts but only prayed for preservation of the same. He places strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India , 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1833, wherein, in a case under the NDPS Act , the Apex Court directed the preservation of CDRs and location charts of the raiding team in order to give fair opportunity to