Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has in its judgement stated that an order directing the preservation of call detail records (CDRs) and location data in a corruption case involving a municipal engineer and a bribery allegation is interlocutory in nature and does not warrant interference under the revisionary or inherent jurisdiction of the court. The petition challenging the trial court's directive was dismissed on the grounds that it does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties or prejudice the prosecution’s case.

The case originated from a complaint filed before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging that a Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), along with another individual, had demanded a bribe of INR 7,000 to permit the complainant to store construction materials outside his shop. The CBI conducted a trap operation, leading to the arrest of one accused while allegedly accepting the bribe.

The accused was subsequently arrested and later released on bail. During the trial proceedings, the accused sought the preservation of CDRs and location data of the CBI officials and independent witnesses involved in the verification and trap operations. The trial court allowed the request, directing the preservation of these records to ensure their availability should they be required at a later stage in the proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, the CBI challenged it before the Delhi High Court.

Also Read: Kerala High Court : Advocate General’s Refusal of Contempt Sanction Not Subject to Judicial Review

The petitioner, CBI, contended that the order directing preservation of CDRs was legally untenable and prejudicial to the investigation. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that allowing such preservation would enable the accused to engage in a speculative defense rather than contest the case on merit. It was also asserted that the accused had neither raised a specific defense nor demonstrated the relevance of the requested records to the case.

The CBI further submitted that the preservation of call records of investigative officers could compromise their privacy and operational integrity, given their involvement in sensitive cases. It was argued that such an order could inadvertently expose confidential informants and jeopardize ongoing investigations.

On the other hand, the respondent-accused argued that the preservation of CDRs was essential to ensure a fair trial. It was submitted that since the prosecution relied on mobile data, denying the accused access to similar records would be inequitable. The respondent clarified that the request was not for immediate access to the records but merely for their preservation to prevent their automatic deletion by telecom service providers.

The defense also cited precedents to argue that the accused is entitled to present all relevant evidence to disprove the allegations against him. It was argued that the order was procedural and did not impede the investigation in any manner.

The court observed that the order in question was interlocutory in nature as it merely directed the preservation of records without granting access to them. It was stated that:

“The order only safeguards potential evidence from automatic deletion and does not alter the prosecution’s case in any manner. The respondent would still have to seek permission from the court at the appropriate stage to access these records.”

Citing the statutory bar under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court noted that an interlocutory order is not subject to revision. It referred to judicial precedents to explain that an order is deemed interlocutory if it does not finally determine the rights of the parties or substantially affect the outcome of the case. The court stated:

“An interlocutory order does not bring proceedings to a conclusion but facilitates the trial process. Since the impugned order does not terminate the case or adjudicate upon the guilt of the accused, it falls within the ambit of interlocutory orders.”

Also Read: "Supreme Court Sets Aside Termination of Two Women Judicial Officers, Stresses Fair Process and Inclusive Work Environment in Judiciary"

Additionally, the court distinguished this case from judgments cited by the petitioner, clarifying that the request was for preservation and not production of records. It was stated that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution as the impugned order merely prevented the deletion of potential evidence.

The court also dismissed concerns regarding privacy and security, stating that the trial court’s order explicitly excluded secret informants and was limited to official records of the verification and trap teams. The judgment read:

“Preservation of CDRs does not grant an accused automatic access to them; it only ensures their availability should they be required at a later stage. The trial court retains discretion in determining whether these records should be produced.”

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s order, dismissing the CBI’s petition. The court directed that:

1. The CDRs of specific mobile numbers mentioned in the witness list shall be preserved by the respective telecom service providers for the dates specified in the trial court’s order.

2. The records shall only be summoned if an application is made by the accused during trial proceedings.

3. The preservation order does not imply that these numbers were necessarily used during the investigation, and their relevance remains subject to judicial determination during trial.

4. No sensitive information, including the identity of investigating officers involved in other cases, shall be disclosed without appropriate safeguards to ensure national security and operational integrity.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Neeraj Kumar

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC: 1405

Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 1194/2023 & CRL.M.A. 30434/2023

Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

[Read/Download order]