High Court Denies Request to Expand CDR Preservation Scope: Rajasthan High Court

In a recent order, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has declined to expand the scope of a prior judicial direction concerning the preservation of electronic evidence. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhound dismissed a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner, Dr. Avinash Sharma, who sought to include additional mobile tower locations and Call Data Records (CDR) of police personnel beyond those ordered in an earlier hearing.

Case Background

The petition arose from a broader criminal trial involving the petitioner, Dr. Avinash Sharma, currently in judicial custody at the District Jail in Kotputli-Behror. On November 6, 2025, the High Court had reviewed an application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). At that time, the Court directed the relevant authorities to preserve the CDR and mobile tower location of a specific officer, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Kotputli, for a defined temporal window.

Dissatisfied with the scope of that order, the petitioner moved a subsequent application requesting that the court include the mobile data of a constable and several other members of the "raid party" allegedly involved in the case.

Contentious Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the mobile number of Constable Devendra was inadvertently omitted from the court’s original directive. They argued that expanding the scope of the preservation order to include other members of the police team was essential for a fair examination of the evidence.

Conversely, the Public Prosecutor (PP) for the State of Rajasthan vehemently opposed the application. The State argued that the previous order was passed after exhaustive arguments and a thorough perusal of the case diary. The prosecution maintained that the court had judiciously determined the specific evidence required, and there was no "inadvertent error" justifying a modification of the standing directive.

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhound scrutinized the record of the November 6, 2025, proceeding. The Court emphasized that judicial orders are not subject to routine modification unless there is a clear clerical or accidental error. In this instance, the original order was the result of a deliberate judicial evaluation after hearing both sides. Finding no lapse in the legal process or accidental omission, the Bench concluded that no grounds existed to reopen the matter.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in evidence collection:

• "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."
• "Accordingly, the present misc. application stands dismissed."
• The court reaffirmed the sanctity of its previous ruling, highlighting that Section 94 orders are made based on the necessity established at the time of the initial hearing.

Implications of the Decision

The dismissal of this application serves as a reminder that courts will adhere to the principle of finality regarding procedural orders once they have been evaluated on their merits. For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of being comprehensive during the initial application phase, as courts are unlikely to revisit or broaden the scope of evidence preservation orders without demonstrating a procedural error or significant change in circumstances. The trial proceedings regarding the petitioner are expected to continue based on the evidentiary parameters already established by the Court.