Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that an accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence over the right to privacy of police officials. The court emphasized that call and tower location details could be sought under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to uncover the truth and ensure fairness for all stakeholders.

Case Background

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand heard a petition challenging an order of the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota. The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Soni, sought the preservation of call and tower location data of certain witnesses, including two individuals alleged to have been part of trap proceedings against him. The lower court had partially rejected the petitioner's application under Section 91 CrPC, preserving the data of the complainant and the Investigating Officer but excluding that of the two witnesses.

Right to Evidence and Fair Trial

The court acknowledged that ordering the preservation and production of call details infringes on the privacy of police officials. However, it held that the accused's right to a free and fair trial outweighs such concerns. Justice Dhand observed: “No doubt, while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 CrPC, the right to privacy of police officials would be violated. However, the accused's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail.”

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in an anti-corruption case and alleged that the trap proceedings were fabricated. He sought to verify the presence of two witnesses—Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena—whose locations, he claimed, were incorrectly recorded in the proceedings. CCTV footage reportedly contradicted their presence at the scene, strengthening the petitioner's request for mobile location data to establish his defense.

The High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India (2014), where it was held that call detail records could be summoned to determine the location of relevant parties, provided irrelevant details such as numbers called or received are redacted. The Apex Court emphasized balancing the accused's right to evidence with protecting the privacy of others.

Decision and Directions

Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the trial court to summon the tower locations of the two witnesses' mobile numbers for March 10, 2023, between 1:40 PM and 10:00 PM. It also mandated redacting incoming and outgoing call details to safeguard privacy.  This judgment reiterates that procedural safeguards under Section 91 CrPC are essential for a fair trial, particularly in cases where electronic evidence can substantiate claims. While the court emphasized the necessity of proving the relevance and desirability of such records, it reinforced the primacy of the accused's constitutional right to defend against allegations.

Cause title: Narendra Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan

Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4342/2024

Date: January-07-2025

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand 

[Read/download order]