The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Krishan Pawdia vs The State, NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain denied the preservation of CDR of the raiding party’s mobile phone as it is against the personal safety/security of the police officials and may expose identity of the secret informers.
Facts
This petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC for giving directions to the investigating agency/I.O./SHO for supplying contact numbers of the members of the raiding party and the location chart of the mobile of the members of the raiding party in an FIR and giving directions to the investigating agency/I.O./SHO to conduct fair investigation.
Based on a secret information regarding delivery of illegal ganja, a raiding party under supervision of inspector AATS, Dwarka District was prepared and during raid three persons, namely, including the petitioner were apprehended. A FIR was registered u/s 20/25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The charge sheet was filed, and trial is pending.
Procedural History
The petitioner during the trial filed an application u/s 91 CrPC, which was dismissed. It was observed that a similar type of application was filed by co-accused Rakesh Dahiya who was represented by same counsel and was dismissed as withdrawn. It was also observed that the accused Rakesh Dahiya again filed a similar application which was disposed of and against this order, a writ petition was filed, which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. The application u/s 91 CrPC filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating agency and was not arrested in the manner as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner has a right to natural justice and fair investigation and for this it is required to preserve the location chart of the members of the raiding party as mentioned in the FIR along with the location chart and the contact no. of the accused including the petitioner.
Respondent: The petitioner had not appeared with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. He did not disclose that the similar application u/s 91 CrPC filed by co-accused Rakesh Dahiya through same counsel was dismissed. The application u/s 91 CrPC maintainable. The petitioner does not have any prima facie case.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the members of raiding party belonged to a specialized investigating agency which carries investigation in the matter of national interest, terrorism, armed dealing, drug paddling and organized criminal activities and for said purpose the members of the raiding party must remain in touch with the secret informers. It also noted that it would be against the interest of the functioning of the investigating agency to preserve CDR of mobile phone of the raiding party as it may cause prejudice to the personal safety/security of the police officials as well as may expose identity of the secret informers.
Judgment
The Bench noted that the investigation was already complete and after considering all facts, it observed that the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. So, the petition was dismissed.
Case: Krishan Pawdia vs The State, NCT of Delhi
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 1236/2022
Bench: Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Decided on: 3rd June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
