Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

h Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in CrMA No.102 of 2025, titled Raj Mal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), having been filed by the petitioner-accused for preserving the CDRs, Tower Location and Customer Application Form, came to be dismissed, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Se.ction 528 of BNSS.

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR No. 22 of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 28.1.2024 under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the basis of recoverry of contraband i.e. 288 grams of Chitta from the conscious possession of the petitioner-accused. During pendency of the trial before learnoed Special Judge, accused preferred application under Section 94C of BNSS, praying therein for preserving the CDRs, Tower Location and Customer Application Form forthwith, however such prayer of hhim was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.12.2025.

In nutshell, case of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner-accused has been falsely implicated and with a view to prove his false implication, he sought preservation of CDR as detailed herein above. It is averred in the petition that petitioner had received one ransom call and immediately, thereafter FIR was lodged against him, as such, he has reason to presume and believe that ransom call was made at the behest of police officials or their agents., which fact could only be established with the preservation of data as is sought to be preserved through afore application.

Though having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, there was no occasion, if any, for this court to interfere with the s ame, but yet with a view to do complete justice and afford reasonabler opportunity to the petitioner-accused to prove his innocence, this Court specifically called upon the learned Additional Advocate Generalo vide order dated 8.4.2026 to verify whether the record, otherwise sCought to be preserved through application under Section 94 of the BNSS, filed by the petitioner, can be retrieved from the concerned Mobile Nethwork Operator at this stage or not?.

Afore order was passed pursuant to specific plea taken by the learned Additional Advocate General on the given date that prayer, if any, made by the petitioner through afore application cannot be accepted at this stage, for the reason that Mobile Network Operator only preserves data of preceding two years, whereas in the case at hand, data of CDR is being demanded for a period beyond two years.

Pursuant to order dated 8.4.2026, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 17.4.2026 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith certain documents suggestive of the fact that pursuant to directions issued by this court, matter was taken up with the Nodal Officers of Airtel and Reliance (Jio), who vide communication dated 1 6/17.4.2026, have categorically stated that they preserve CDRs forr preceding two years only, whereas the details sought are beyond two years, as such, CDRs of mobile Nos. 98572-01182 (Airtel) and 70183o-54648 (Reliance Jio) for the period between 28.12.2023 to 27.1.202C4 are not available.

In view of the afore fact, no orders with regard to preservatio