Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ugersen vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36623) on 14 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36623]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2778/2025
Ugersen S/o Ramlal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Ward No.
10, Pirkamadiya, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanuamangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
14/08/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), District
Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court') in Criminal
Session Case No.71/2024, whereby the learned trial court has
rejected the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for
summoning the CCTV footage along with the call details and tower
location of mobile phones of police officials, however, the same
was rejected vide impugned order. It is further submitted that a
false case has been foisted upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon
the judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Chota Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan :
SBCRLMP No.3472/2023 (Natural Citation 2024:RJ-
[2025:RJ-JD:36623] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2778/2025]
JD:14887), the relevant part of the said judgment is being
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has emphasized that the procedure
established by law must always be fair, just and
reasonable and it cannot be arbitrary, oppressive or
unreasonable.
8. The basics of criminal jurisprudence is that always
the onus lied upon the prosecution to prove its case
beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt. Although in
some of the statute a reverse burden theory has also
been adopted but this is not the case here. When the
prosecution brings a case to try and punish an accused
for certain culpable act, then it is imperative upon the
prosecution; rather, it is an obligation to prove the
charges by producing cogent, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence, which may be in the form of
oral or documentary evidence. When it is the case of
the prosecution that the accused persons were
apprehended from the particular place at a particular
time, then it would be incumbent upon them to
establish the fact beyond reasonable doubt."
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and
prayed for dismissal of the criminal misc. petition.
4. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed.
5. It is ordered that the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the
trial court in Criminal Session Case No.71/2024 is quashed and set
aside and the application moved by the petitioners before the trial
court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
[2025:RJ-JD:36623] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2778/2025]
6. The learned trial court is directed to pass necessary
directions to the respondent-State, police officers as well as the
service provider company of the respective mobile numbers for
providing requisite call details and tower locations of the mobile
phones of police officers, names of which are mentioned in the
application. The police officer of the concerned Police Station shall
also be directed to procure the above evidence at the earliest so
as to prevent them from destroying, vanishing and deleting. After
receiving the above evidence, the trial court is directed to keep it
on record of the case along with certification under Section 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act and the same could be utilized by both the
parties during the examination of the witnesses. The accused shall
be permitted to ask questions from the concerned police officers
by confronting them with the electronic record produced. The
above task is permitted only with a view to ascertain or shake the
credibility of the witnesses and to enable the parties to bring the
truth on record and which would not mean leading the defence
evidence rather it would be a cross check of the prosecution
evidence.
7. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
18-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
