IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA rd ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51553 of 2024 JITENDRASINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Himanshu Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Monisha Kasturi - P.L. for respondent/State.

ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 428 of the BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 11/9/2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jawad, District Neemuch whereby his application filed under Section 91 and 92 of the Cr.P.C read with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act to preserve the call details and tower location of the mobile phone and CCTV footage of the places as mentioned in the application has been rejected.

2. In the present case the petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Trial No.SC/ST 50/24 for the offences punishable under Section 8/15, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at police station Jawad, District Neemuch.

3. In the aforesaid case the petitioner's defence is that he has been falsely implicated in the case and was not present on the spot when he was apprehended. He was picked up from the house and was taken to the police station and thereafter he has been roped in the present crime. To demonstrate his contention he has applied for calling the record of the tower locations of his mobile phones as well as the CCTV footage of the places as mentioned in the application through which he Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH was taken from his house to the police station.

4 . The application was opposed by the learned counsel for the State submitting that the same would unnecessarily cause delay in the matter and that the footage can be produced by the accused himself. The application has been rejected by the learned Special Judge on the ground that if the details called for by the petitioner are not directed to be produced no prejudice would be caused to him and that he can himself produce the said details.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Amjad @ Guddu Lala s/o Ajgar Khan passed in M.Cr.C.No.4839/2023 dated 20.2.2023 whereby, under similar circumstances, an application arising out of the provisions of NDPS Act filed under Sections under Sections 91, 92 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was rejected by the trial court and this Court has allowed the petition by quashing the impugned order and directing the trial court to ensure the preservation of the record as desired by the petitioner. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is akin to that of Amjad @ Guddu Lala (Supra). It is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 91, 92 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act be allowed.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the CDR of the police personnel cannot be shared with the petitioner for security reason and, thus, the application has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the trial court.

7. On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the case diary as also the order passed by this Court in the case of Amjad @ Guddu Lala (supra) this Court is inclined to allow the present petition. So far as the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH admissibility of the aforesaid documents is concerned, the same can be taken note by the trial Court at the time when the appropriate application is filed by the petitioner in that behalf. However, at this stage, when the petitioner is only seeking preservation of the CDR and is seeking the CCTV footage the first effort of the Court must be to ensure that they are preserved so that they can be used by the parties concerned in their defence and also to prosecute the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in eyes of the law.

8. In view of the same,