IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 2^nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5888 of 2025 RAJESH MALI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Vikas Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Surendra Pal Singh Alawa – G.A. for the respondent/State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 16.01.2026 Pronounced on : 02.02.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2025 in SCNDPS No.2112/2025 by Additional Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mandsaur, whereby an application under Section 94 – 95 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 65 & 65(B) of Evidence Act (Annexure P-2) for summoning of call details/ record of the persons mentioned in the application concerning the period between 5^th to 6^th of October, 2024 have been partially allowed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the present revision petitioner is accused alongwith three other persons namely Ankit Mali, Rohit Parihar and Deepak More in connection with Crime No.236/2024 registered at P.S: Malhargarh, Mandsaur under Section 8/22, 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In this case, co-accused Rohit Parihar and Deepak More are absconding.

3. The revision petitioner/accused filed an application (Annexure P/2) for summoning the call details/ records of the persons mentioned in para of the applications concerning the dates of 5^th to 6^th of October, 2024 submitting that he was abducted on 05.10.2024 from Village Araniya, Nizamuddin, P.S: Nai Abadi, Mandsaur and was lodged in a house located at unknown place. He was taken from that unknown place to Krishi Upaj Mandi, Malhargarh, Mandsaur and photos were taken and videos were prepared and have been implicated falsely on 06.10.2024 for 500 gm MD and 5 kg poppy straw. The application was opposed by the State referring to State of Rajasthan vs. Shravansingh alias Baba reported in LAWS (SC) – 2024-2-37. The trial Court allowed the applications in respect of persons mentioned at Para 7.1, 7.2, 7.7 and 7.8 but rejected the application in connection with persons mentioned at Para 7.3 to 7.6 and 7.10 to 7.13. 4. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition has been preferred.

5. In Special Police Establishment vs. Umesh Tiwari and Anr reported in ILR 2022 LP 969, a Division Bench of M.P. High Court in para 7 has held that:-

7. The Court can invoke Section 91 either suo moto or on behest of some stakeholder in the process of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The cause for invoking Section 91 can arise from any source, be it victim, accused (except during pendency of investigation) and Police. Denying any of the stakeholder, the right to invoke Section 91 may defeat the ultimate object behind Section 91 which is to ensure discovery of truth, rendering of justice and preventing failure of justice. However, any such invocation by any stakeholder at any point of time would be subject to satisfaction of necessity and desirability of that document to the process of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.

6. The principle laid down in Swarnsingh alias Baba (supra) is that the accused cannot invoke and would not have a right to invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge.

7. The Apex Court in Sarla Gupta vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 7 SCC 626, for the sake of clarity, observed in paragraph 68.5 as under:-

“At the stage of entering upon defence, an accused can apply for the issue of process for the production of any document or thing in accordance with Section 233(3) CrPC [Section 256(3) BNSS]. At this stage, he can also apply for the production of a document or a thing that is in the c