A court order passed after hearing both parties is not subject to modification or clarification unless a manifest inadvertent error is established; the mere desire of a party to include additional evidence (CDR/Tower locations) does not justify modification.

Order

1. The instant misc. application has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this miscellaneous application and the order dated 06.11.2025 may kindly be modified/ clarified to the extent that:-

(i) by appropriate order/direction the order dated 06.11.2025 may kindly be suitably recalled/modified/corrected to the extent that the Mobile Tower Location and CDR of Mobile No. 7568010102 of Constable Devendra 786 which is stated in the FIR be summoned and directed to be preserved, which has been left in the Order;

(ii) It is further prayed that the Mobile Tower Location and CDR of the other members of the Raid Party whose mobile numbers are stated in table of Para 3 of this Application along with of mobile number 9784955466 belonging to the

Police person who came to home of the Petitioner, may also be summoned.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the matter was heard and decided by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2025, the Cell Phone No. 8949576540 of Rajesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Police Station Kotputli was mentioned for the purpose of preserving the Call Data Record and mobile tower location. Counsel submits that in fact the cell phone number of the Constable Devendra bearing No. 7568010102 was also mentioned in the order, hence modification of the order dated 06.11.2025 is required.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that after hearing the arguments at length and after perusing the case diary, this Court deemed it just and proper to pass the direction in para 11 and 12 which reads as under:-

“11. Accordingly, application under Section 94 of the BNSS filed by the petitioner stands partly allowed. The Trial Court is directed to summon the location of Cell Phone No.8949576540 of Rajesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Police Station Kotpurli, Kotwali for the period commencing from 03.00 PM on 8th September, 2025 till 01.00 PM of the intervening night of 08th & 09th September, 2025. The concerned service provider/mobile company is directed to preserve the Call Data Record and mobile tower location of the aforesaid mobile number, for the aforesaid period.

12. This Court further directs that the details of the phone number of the incoming and outgoing calls made from the aforessaid mobile phone number shall be censored by the service provider/mobile company while furnishing the aforesaid details to the Trial Court.

4. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, no such order was passed by this Court for preserving the Call Data Record pertaining to cell phone No. 7568010102, hence under these circumstances, the order dated 06.11.2025 is not required to be modified.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the parties and after perusing the order dated 06.11.2025, it is clear that a specific order was passed by which the trial Court was directed to summon the location of phone No. 8949576540 belonging to Rajesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Police Station Kotputli. This Court finds no error in the aforesaid order and there was no inadvertent error on the part of this Court and the order was passed after hearing both the parties, hence no modification/clarification is required.

7. Accordingly, the present misc. application stands dismissed.