Order

1. The petitioner preferred the instant Misc. Petition for setting aside of the order dated 13.01.2026, passed by the learned NDPS Act cases, Hanumangarh in FIR No.457/2024 of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction.

2. The Petitioner happens to be an accused of a prosecution under NDPS Act. On 06-01-2026, he moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to preserve evidence, the description of which is given in Para No.4 & 5 in the application above.

2.1. The issue involved in this case is now no more as res-integra in light of the judgment passed after an elaborate discussion with regard to the controversy involved in the case of Chotha Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SBCRLMP No.3672/2023 decided on 04.03.2023. The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder:-

11. This Court feels that if for the purpose of reserving and saving the right of the accused and for the sake of justice, if a prayer is made to summon the electronic evidence so as to elicit the truth behind the story, then such prayer ought not to have been declined. When the assertion is made that what is wrong may be proved to be wrong and vice-versa in the end so that the oil and truth must come out, then the defence must be given an opportunity because not giving an opportunity would mean denying them to counter the charges or to defend themselves as well as closing the door of justice for truth to enter in.

12. It is true that after commencement of the trial, the opportunity is being given to the prosecution to lead or adduce evidence in support of charges, whereafter an explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. will be sought from the accused and then the stage of entering into defence under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. would come. It is also true that until the stage of taking the evidence of the defence on record comes, the defence evidence is not required to be taken on record and for that purpose no defence material would be summoned but here is not the question of taking or tendering the defence evidence or relying upon that rather it is observed that, as per the Rules and Regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the data of call record is deleted automatically after lapse of one year, then it becomes the duty of the Court to save the data so as to enable the defence or any other party to take use of it at the appropriate stage. In fact, ordering saving/storing/preserving data from destroy would not mean that at the premature stage defence evidence is taken.

13. It does not mean that allowing an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for protection of electronic records from deletion and summoning the same to keep on record would mean taking evidence of defence at a nascent stage; rather, it is being done only for the purpose of saving and protecting the evidence from being destroyed. In fact, the defence evidence shall be taken and considered after the stage of Section 233 of Cr.P.C. would come. The Court of Law and Justice is not supposed to tolerate vanishing or damaging the evidence of vital importance, the presence of which would be displaying the truth which would further mean that the truth will prevail, that the truth will be separated and set aside from the lies.

14. It is not comprehensible that what is the harm if the evidence of vital importance, which may play a key role in adjudicating the charges, is saved, stored, preserved and protected from being destroyed till the actual stage of consideration of that evidence would come.

15. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the accused persons are taking risk in making prayer for summoning call data record and tower locations record of the police officers, who claim that they apprehended the accused persons from a particular place and at a particular time, which if produced and found genuine then it may be a further piece of evidence against them as the story of the prosecution shall be proved genuine, however, imagine that if the call data