Court directs telecom providers to preserve mobile tower locations beyond standard period for verifying arrest location in NDPS defence.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2026 The petitioner is the 4^th accused in S.C.

No.1491/2024 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Cases, Manjeri, (‘Trial Court’, for short) which has originated from Crime No. 30/2024 registered by the Malappuram Excise Range Office, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, inter-alia, contending that the prosecution allegation, that the petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2024 and the contraband was recovered from him, is per se incorrect. The petitioner’s arrest is illegal. He was taken into custody on 07.06.2024 at 21:00 hours and was detained overnight. It was on the following day that he was taken to the scene of occurrence. In order to discredit the prosecution allegation, it is highly necessary that the tower locations of the mobile phone numbers of the petitioner and the Detecting Officer and party are preserved by the service providers. Although the petitioner has filed Annexure 3 application before the Trial Court, the same has not been considered till date. The service providers are obliged to preserve the data of the tower locations and the call records only for a period of two years from the date of origin, which in the instant case would expire on 08.06.2026. Therefore, the petitioner is left with no other alternative remedy, but to approach this Court.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. The petitioner’s specific case is that, he is the subscriber of mobile phone Nos.9744490171 and 8086089093 of the 2^nd respondent service provider. Likewise, the Detecting Officer (CW3) is the subscriber of mobile numbers 9846561971 of the 2^nd respondent service provider, and CWs 2 and 14 are the subscribers of the mobile numbers 9809033479 and 8129237375 of the 3^rd respondent service provider. In order to prove the petitioner’s defence, it is necessary to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to preserve the tower locations of the above mentioned mobile numbers till the conclusion of the trial in S.C.No. 1491/2024.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and

3 submit that, as per the TRAI Regulations, they are obliged to preserve the tower location only for a period of two years from the date of origin.

6. In Suresh Kumar v. Union of India [2014 KHC

6049], 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 Ya