IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.07.2025.

Surinder Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. Kanishk Swaroop, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of orders dated 17.04.2025 and 21.05.2025 (Annexures P4 and P5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in FIR No.136 dated 02.07.2023, under Section 18/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala, vide which the applications for preserving the call detail records and tower locations from the period of

01.06.2023 to 01.08.2023, have been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his prayer in the present petition be confined to preserving the call detail record and tower location, only regarding Inspector Gurpreet Singh Bhinder/ SHO Police Station Nabha and he does not press for preserving the call detail records and tower locations of others i.e. Amritpal Singh, Jai Parkash @ Kishore and Vinod. He inter-alia contended that on 02.07.25024, the petitioner and his friends Jai Parkash @ Kishore, Vinod and Amritpal visited the Dhani (residence) of aforesaid Amritpal, where Gurpreet Singh Bhinder/ SHO, Police Station Nabha came at the spot and apprehended the petitioner in an unlawful manner after twisting the facts and concocting a false version. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and recovery of 10 Kg opium was implanted upon him. After two months of the said occurrence, above said Jai Parkash @ Kishore was arrested in the present case under Section 29 of NDPS Act. He further contended that the petitioner preferred two applications dated 06.11.2024 and 04.03.2025 for the preservation of the call detail records and tower locations of the petitioner himself as well as the concerned SHO namely, Gurpreet Singh Bhinder and all the above said persons, who were accompanying him at the time of his unlawful arrest. While adjudicating the application filed by the petitioner dated 06.11.2024, the same was allowed only qua the petitioner and qua rest of the persons, it was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.04.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner again preferred the application for preservation for call detail records and tower location and same was dismissed on the ground of maintainability vide order dated 21.05.2025. He urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala overlooked the fact that in case the call detail records and tower location was not preserved, same would be destroyed by the service providers and grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in view of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in this context, he has relied upon the judgments in Tarun Sharma @ Vipul and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, SLP (Crl.) No.17319 of 2024, Prince Vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-49365-2022 and CBI Vs. Neeraj Kumar, 2023 SCC Online Del 1351, decided on 04.03.2025.

He has submitted that right to free and fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed as per mandate of Constitution of India and preservation of the call detail records and tower location of Gurpreet Singh Bhinder/ SHO Police Station Nabha is necessary to unravel the truth as well as for the proper and just decision of the case and has prayed that the orders dated 17.04.2025 and 21.05.2025 (Annexures P4 and P5) be set aside and call detail records and tower location of Gurpreet Singh Bhinder/ SHO Police Station Nabha be preserved.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner were opposed by learned State counsel, who submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity and providing call detail records of Inspector Gurpreet Singh Bhinder/ SHO Police Station Nabha would prejudice the security and privacy and