Rajasthan High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh S/O Bageshwar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3313/2022
Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Bageshwar Singh, R/o A-1305 Skyline
Apartment, Rajiv Nagar, Kota, presently DGM, retail office HPCL,
Address-3-A-5 Rangbadi, Main Road, Talvandi Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
18/05/2022
Heard the parties.
Petitioner is accused in connection with FIR No. 205/2021
registered with police station ACB, Jaipur for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption
Act as well as under Section 120B of the IPC.
The petitioner filed an application before the learned Special
Judge, Jaipur under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that
on 20.06.2021 a raid was allegedly conducted and trap was also
executed against the petitioner. The petitioner wants that tower
location of the referred mobile numbers which includes mobile
number of the petitioner also and some of the independent
witness and mobile tower location of referred mobile numbers of
raiding party, on the ground that in fact no raid was conducted at
the time mentioned nor the persons were present at that time.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3313/2022]
Prayer has been refused by the impugned order dated
24.03.2022 on the ground that details of personal mobile number
could violate the right of privacy of person concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Sh. Suresh Kumar Vs. Union
of India 2014 SCC online SC 1833 and has referred para-8 of the
judgment which reads as follows:-
"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. Makhija made a 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 of such
information. That in our opinion simplifies the matter
inasmuch as while the call details demanded by the
appellant can be summoned in terms of Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act such details being relevant only
to the extent of determining the location of officers 8
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 called or 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."
The preservation and production of tower location of the
referred mobile numbers on the date of alleged trap, could be
relevant evidence for just adjudication of the case. It would be
beneficial for the prosecution as well as the accused. If the tower
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3313/2022]
location establishes that the holder of mobile was at the place that
would fortify prosecution case and if it is proved that tower
location of the referred mobile was not at the referred place, it
would favour the claim of the accused facing the trial.
The reasons assigned by the Special Judge while refusing the
prayer cannot be accepted against the valuable defence of the
accused.
Hence, the impugned order hereby stands quashed and it is
directed that the location of referred mobile numbers be preserved
by authority concerned with immediate effect and be produced at
the appropriate stage of the trial failing which adverse inference
would be drawn against the prosecution as per Evidence Act.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to learned Public
Prosecutor and other concerned officials.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
ashu /50
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
