HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8898/2025 Ajit ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8398/2025 Jagdish ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8900/2025 Mahaveer ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Rawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit Present in person(s) : Mr. Hari Shankar, S.P. Hanumangarh Mr. Kan Singh, RPS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

15/01/2026 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely implicated in the present case, despite detailed observations having been made by this Court on previous occasion, no fair investigation has been done in the matter. It is stated that no CCTV camera footage from the National Highway Authority, CDR or the BTS data has been collected in the matter, which is essential for investigation to show the presence of the police personnel.

The Superintendent of Police as well as the Investigating Officer are present before the Court along with the case diary, in view of the direction issued by the this court on 18.12.2025.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report dated

14.01.2026, which reveals that the Investigating Agency sought CCTV camera footage from the National Highway Authority; however, the same was denied on the ground that the footage is preserved only for four days. However other material has not been collected and as the application of the petitioner is seeking the CDR and CCTV footage is pending before the learned trial Court.

It would be essential to mention that, in so far as the application filed by the petitioners before the trial court is concerned, the same is relevant only to the extent of the information to be provided to the petitioners. The Superintendent of Police has also placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has stated that the material can only be supplied to the petitioner upon the decision of the trial court upon the application.

It is observed that the Investigating Officer is nowhere concerned with the application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court. The said application filed by the petitioner seeking CDR and CCTV footage is required to be decided on its own merits, keeping in view the rights of the petitioner involved in the trial. There is no bar upon the Investigating Agency to independently seek such information or collect evidence, whether it be CCTV camera footage, CDRs, or BTS data, on their own and to investigate the matter.

The report reveals that the entire investigation is based upon the application pending before the trial Court, whereas the same has no relevance in the present case, as it will only decide the rights of the petitioner, and not of the investigating agency. So far as the present investigation in concerned, it is being undertaken by the agency qua the complaint filed by the petitioner against the police officials, and they are duty bound to collect all the relevant information and evidence with regard to same, irrespective of any application filed by the petitioner before the court.

It is evident from the report that the investigation conducted so far is nothing but an eyewash and is misleading. Therefore, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police to conduct a fair investigation into the matter by collecting all the due and relevant information. This Court has earlier also taken a serious view of the matter, and in-fact the allegations leveled are of serious nature, as it involves persons being falsely implicated in a criminal case.

The Court is not making any observation on the merits, however, the allegations raised are required to be fairly investigated.

In view of the above, the Superintendent of Police is directed to investigate the matter fairly, without being influenced by the applic