Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2996/2022
Narayanlal S/o Mangilal Kumawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ardakiya Police Station Railmangra, Tehsil Railmangra, District
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/05/2022
1. The present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays challenge to order dated
09.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases,
Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").
2. Precisely narrated facts appertain are that the petitioner is
being tried for allegations of having committed offence under the
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Mr. Moad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and he has been
implicated only on the basis of allegations of co-accused.
4. While maintaining that the petitioner was not at the site nor
did he flee, learned counsel argued that he has requested the trial
Court to summon his call details and location of his two mobile
numbers by way of moving an application dated 06.05.2022, but
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2996/2022]
the same has been cursorily rejected by the trial Court per viam
order dated 09.05.2022.
5. Learned counsel argued that the trial Court has erred in
rejecting petitioner's application ignoring the petitioner's defence
that he was not available at the time of interception/seizure of the
vehicle nor did he flee from the stop. He emphasized that
petitioner's call details and mobile location are utmost necessary
in order to establish his defence and since such details cannot be
provided to the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to
have allowed his application dated 06.05.2022.
6. Mr. Moad, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment rendered by this Court on 15.07.2021 in S.B. Criminal
Misc(Pet.) No.3192/2021 in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs
Union of India.
7. Mr. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial
Court has committed no error of law in rejecting petitioner's
application by way of impugned order. He submitted that call
details and call location are not a conclusive proof of petitioner
not being present at the place.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order
impugned.
9. In the opinion of this Court, when the petitioner has not been
apprehended on the spot and his specific stand is that he has been
wrongly enroped simply on the basis of statements of co-accused,
he is entitled to support his stance by way of his call details and
mobile location.
10. True it is, that the mobile location is not conclusive and it
cannot be said with certitude that the mobile numbers which the
petitioner claims to be belonging to him were being used by the
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2996/2022]
petitioner at the relevant time: but in the interest of justice, if the
petitioner hopes or intends to set his defence on the basis of such
details, he is entitled to have such right established by way of the
call details and mobile location.
11. Needless to state that it is not possible for the petitioner to
obtain call details and mobile location from the company. It can be
done only at the instance of Investigating Officer or pursuant to
order passed by the Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is partly
allowed and the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 is hereby
quashed.
13. Petitioner's application dated 06.05.2022 is allowed to the
extent of providing call details and location of petitioner's own
phone numbers.
14. Wheras petitioner's request for getting call details and call
location of S.H.O. is hereby refused.
15. The trial Court is directed to send requisite precept/order to
the concerned mobile company to provide call details and mobile
location(s) numbers - 7023018416 and 9351031421 at relevant
time and date.
16. On receipt of the mobile tower location and call details, the
trial Court shall consider the same at appropriate stage in
accordance with law.
17. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
216-akansha/pooja-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
