[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ananthu K.S vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025 1
2026:KER:28809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025
CRIME NO.173/2025 OF ALAPPUZHA EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
ANANTHU K.S,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. SANTHOSH, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, THALORE,
EDAKUNNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680306
BY ADV SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT-STATE AND OTHER CONCERNED PARTIES:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE NODAL OFFICER,
RELIANCE JIO INFOCOM, 32/2552-C, 2ND FLOOR,
PUKALAKKATTU KARIYATTU TOWER, NEAR YATHRI NIVAS,
OLD NH47, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682025
3 THE NODAL OFFICER,
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, S.L. AVENUE SERVICE ROAD,
NEAR N.H BYE-PASS ROAD, MARADU, KUNDANNOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
4 THE NODAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL,
KERALA TELECOM CIRCLE, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN,
PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:28809
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.SATHISAN
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.E.V.MOLY
SHRI.SHIBU B.S
SHRI.RAZAK M.
SHRI.BIJU P.PAUL
SHRI.ALVIN JEWEL S.S.
SMT.VIDHYA T.U.
SMT.ABHIRAMI.S
SMT.ANTIJA JAMES
SMT.LEENA VARGHESE
SHRI.DIJIL P.S.
SHRI.SREEKARTHIK S. MENON
SHRI.MOHAMMED DHULQR SHAN
SRI.MATHEW K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025 3
2026:KER:28809
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.173/2025 registered by the Alappuzha Excise Range
Office, for allegedly committing the offences punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(b), 22(c) and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985.
2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal
Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that, the prosecution
allegation that the petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025
at around 16:00 hours, in Mullackal Village, is per se false.
The petitioner was not arrested at the above scene of
occurrence. The Detecting Officer and party have
concocted a false case and created false evidence against
the petitioner. Actually the petitioner and other accused
persons were taken in custody by the Detecting Officer and
his party from Bangalore on 09.11.2025. They had not
CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025 4
2026:KER:28809
seized any contraband articles from the possession of the
accused persons. The Detecting Officer brought the
petitioner and the other accused persons from Bangalore
to Alappuzha and have fabricated the above case. Inorder
to disprove the prosecution case, it is necessary to get the
tower locations of the mobile phone numbers of the
Detecting Officer and his colleagues bearing
No.7907971236 of the 2nd respondent, mobile
Nos.9400069485 and 9567799543 of the 4 th respondent
and also the tower locations of the petitioner and his wife's
mobile numbers with the 2nd and 3rd respondents bearing
Nos.8921008335 and 8891128195, respectively. If the
tower locations of the above five mobile numbers are
furnished, the petitioner can disprove the prosecution case.
In Suresh Kumar v. Union of India [2014 KHC 6049],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the
call details and the tower locations can be directed to be
preserved and can be used by the accused in view of
Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2026:KER:28809
Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 may be directed to
preserve the tower details of the above five mobile
numbers.
3. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed their
respective statements stating that as per the TRAI
guidelines, the CDR data can be preserved for a period of
the two years from the date of its origination.
4. In Suresh Kumar's case supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held thus:
"6. That electronic records are admissible evidence in
criminal trials is not in dispute. S.65A and S.65B of the Indian
Evidence Act make such records admissible subject to the
fulfillment of the requirements stipulated therein which includes a
certificate in terms of S.65B(4) of the said Act. To that extent the
Appellant has every right to summon whatever is relevant and
admissible in his defence including electronic record relevant to
finding out the location of the officers effecting the arrest. Be that
as it may we do not at this stage wish to pre - judge the issue
which would eventually fall for the consideration of the Trial
Court.
7. All that we are concerned with is whether call details
which the Appellant is demanding can be denied to him on the
ground that such details are likely to prejudice the case of the
prosecution by exposing their activities in relation to similar other
cases and individuals. It is not however in dispute that the call
details are being summoned only for purposes of determining the
exact location of the officers concerned at the time of the alleged
arrest of the Appellant from Yashica Palace hotel near the bus
stand. Ms. Makhijamadea candid concession that any other
information contained in the call details will be of no use to the
Appellant and that the Appellant would not insist upon disclosure
2026:KER:28809
of such information. That in our opinion simplifies the matter in as
much as while the call details demanded by the Appellant can be
summoned in terms of S.65B of the Indian Evidence Act such
details being relevant only to the extent of determining the
location of officers concerned need not contain other information
concerning such calls received or made from the telephone
numbers concerned. In other words if the mobile telephone
numbers caller details of the callers are blacked out of the
information summoned from the companies concerned it will
protect the Respondent against any possible prejudice in terms of
exposure of sources of information available to the Bureau.
Interest of justice would in our opinion be sufficiently served if we
direct the Trial Court to summon from the Companies concerned
call details of Sim telephone No. 9039520407 and 7415593902 of
Tata Docomo company and in regard to Sim No. 9165077714 of
Airtel company for the period 24.02.2013 between 4.30 to 8.30
p.m.. We further direct that calling numbers and the numbers
called from the said mobile phone shall be blacked out by the
companies while furnishing such details. We accordingly set
aside. Appeal allowed."
5. In view of the above exposition of law, and
considering the identical facts and circumstances of the
present case as in Suresh Kumar's case, I don't find any
legal prohibition or impediment in directing the
respondents 2 to 4 to preserve the tower locations of the
above five mobile numbers belonging to the above said
persons for a period of two years from today.
In the aforesaid circumstance, I allow the Crl.M.C,
by directing the respondents 2 to 4 to preserve the tower
CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025 7
2026:KER:28809
locations of the above-mentioned mobile numbers for a
period of two years from today. It is made clear that it
would be upto the petitioner to summon the above details
at the appropriate stage through the jurisdictional Court.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
NAB
2026:KER:28809
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11477 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR
DATED 10.11.2025
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE
REPORT IN NDPS CR.NO.173/2025 OF ALAPPUZHA
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE DATED 11.11.2025
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C NO. 8743/2016
DATED 28.02.2019
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.04.2023 IN CRL.M.C NO. 2129/2023 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.11.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO. 5264/2024 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
