The preservation of electronic records is essential for the defense in narcotic-related cases, affirming their admissibility under Indian Evidence Act provisions.

ORDER

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.173/2025 registered by the Alappuzha Excise Range Office, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that, the prosecution allegation that the petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 at around 16:00 hours, in Mullackal Village, is per se false. The petitioner was not arrested at the above scene of occurrence. The Detecting Officer and party have concocted a false case and created false evidence against the petitioner. Actually the petitioner and other accused persons were taken in custody by the Detecting Officer and his party from Bangalore on 09.11.2025. They had not seized any contraband articles from the possession of the accused persons. The Detecting Officer brought the petitioner and the other accused persons from Bangalore to Alappuzha and have fabricated the above case. Inorder to disprove the prosecution case, it is necessary to get the tower locations of the mobile phone numbers of the Detecting Officer and his colleagues bearing No.7907971236 of the 2^nd respondent, mobile Nos.9400069485 and 9567799543 of the 4^th respondent and also the tower locations of the petitioner and his wife’s mobile numbers with the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents bearing Nos.8921008335 and 8891128195, respectively. If the tower locations of the above five mobile numbers are furnished, the petitioner can disprove the prosecution case. InSuresh Kumar v. Union of India [2014 KHC 6049] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the call details and the tower locations can be directed to be preserved and can be used by the accused in view of Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872.

Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 may be directed to preserve the tower details of the above five mobile numbers.

3. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed their respective statements stating that as per the TRAI guidelines, the CDR data can be preserved for a period of the two years from the date of its origination.

4. In Suresh Kumar’s case supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:

“6. That electronic records are admissible evidence in criminal trials is not in dispute. S.65A and S.65B of the Indian Evidence Act make such records admissible subject to the fulfillment of the requirements stipulated therein which includes a certificate in terms of S.65B(4) of the said Act. To that extent the Appellant has every right to summon whatever is relevant and admissible in his defence including electronic record relevant to finding out the location of the officers effecting the arrest. Be that as it may we do not at this stage wish to pre - judge the issue which would eventually fall for the consideration of the Trial Court.

7. All that we are concerned with is whether call details which the Appellant is demanding can be denied to him on the ground that such details are likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution by exposing their activities in relation to similar other cases and individuals. It is not however in dispute that the call details are being summoned only for purposes of determining the exact location of the officers concerned at the time of the alleged arrest of the Appellant from Yashica Palace hotel near the bus stand. Ms. Makhijamadea candid concession that any other information contained in the call details will be of no use to the Appellant and that the Appellant would not insist upon disclosure of such information. That in our opinion simplifies the matter in as much as while the call details demanded by the Appellant can be summoned in terms