The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for call location data aimed at proving non-presence at an incident, finding no merit in the appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 26 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28669 of 2025 DEVENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Case No. 90/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and Section 94 of BNSS was dismissed.

The petitioner had filed an application on 20.05.2025 before the Learned Trial Court seeking summons for the call location data of complainant Ravindra S/o Shri Krishna. The petitioner contended that the complainant was not present at the scene of the incident on 11.11.2024 and that the prosecution had falsely stated that the incident was recorded one hour after it occurred, based on imaginary assumptions. According to the prosecution story, the complainant had stated that he came to the place of incident at 04:00 P.M. in a Venue Car with deceased Sunil to demand money Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA from accused Pushpendra Bhadauria. However, the petitioner claimed that the complainant was not present at the place of incident with the deceased on the said date.

It was further submitted that the investigation conducted by Police Station Maharajpura was tainted and unfair, and that the police had wrongly stated that the complainant was present at the incident site with the deceased. The petitioner requested that the call location data of the complainant’s mobile number for the period from 10.11.2024 to 11.11.2024 be summoned, as it could provide crucial evidence. The petitioner relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, Jabalpur in WP No. 7332/25 dated 03.03.2025. Despite this, the learned Trial Court, by order dated 30.05.2025, rejected the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and Section 94 of BNSS .

The present petition has been filed on the following grounds:-

"1. That, the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the 22th Additional Session Judge Gwalior is improper, incorrect and against the facts of the case, hence deserves to be set-aside.

2. That, the applicant has not committed any offence he has been falsely implicated. A false case has been got registered by the police though he has not committed any offence.

3. That, as per the records available in the charge sheet filed before the Learned Trial Court it is clear that the complainant Narendra Singh is using his Jio Company Mobile number

9407593531 at the time of incident.

4. That, by the perusal of the Naksha Mauka and Dehati Nalsi there is complete controversy present as per the prosecution story because as per Dehati Nalsi and FIR the complainant Ravindra Singh visited the office of accused Pushpendra Singh alongwith deceased Sunil Singh but as per Naksha Mauka the incident occurred at different place other than the Dehati Nalsi and FIR it clearly indicate that the complainant was not it all present at the time of incident alongwith the deceased.

5. That, it is very essential to bring the call location data of Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA complainant of Revindra Singh so that the present applicant avail his right to defence his case.

6. That, the whole investigation done by the respondent is very controversial and the charge sheet filed before the Learned Trial Court is full of vague and false allegation and if the location data of the complainant was summon then the actual reality regarding the presence of complainant at the time of incident came before the Learned Trial Court hence the impugned order dated

30.05.2025 may be set-aside.

7. That, other gro