Dismissed

Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore v. S.P.E./C.B.I./ Acu-Vi New Delhi

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2020A482/5032/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant in a corruption case sought directions under Section 482 CrPC to preserve CDRs and location data of CBI officials for one year to prove a conspiracy. The single-judge bench held the prayer was misconceived, lacking specific details, constituted a roving enquiry, and would infringe the privacy of investigating agency officials.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC seeking preservation of CDRs and location details of CBI officials was dismissed.

Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5032 of 2020 Applicant :- Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore Opposite Party :- S.P.E./C.B.I./ Acu-Vi New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶6

1- Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash,learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the record.

¶7

2- The present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with a prayer to quash the Order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 09 of 2019 (CBI vs. Sunil Dutt & others) arising out of RC No. 2172019A0001 at Police Station SPE/CBI/ACU-VI/AC-11, New Delhi under Section 120-B read with Sections 7 (C), 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further prayer has been made that the Special Judge, be directed to give instructions to the Telecom Providers to preserve the Call Detail Record (CDR) and Location Chart of the persons mentioned in the enclosed list with the Application No. 97 kha of the last one year.

¶8

3- In brief, the prosecution case is that a FIR purports to have been registered against the applicant and other two named coaccused persons alongwith some unknown officials of U.P. Police which has been registered as RC No. 2172019A0001 U/S 120-B read with Sections 7(c), 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the applicant and co-accused Sunil Dutt had accepted Rs.20 lakhs as illegal gratification from co-accused Ranbir Singh, Tehsildar, who is a suspect in Yamuna Express Way Industrial Development Authority land scam case, in order to give him undue

¶9

¶10

relief in the aforesaid land scam case. Pursuant thereto, the CBI laid the trap and applicant was caught red handed accepting bribe of Rs.20 lakhs.

¶11

4- Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri Ronak Chaturvedi in the support of the application contended that present case is based on absolutely false allegations, concocted and fabricated facts. He further contended that the applicant has strong apprehension and reason to believe that he is being trapped in this false case out of some personal vendetta by using some pocket witnesses and by showing false and fabricated location of CBI officials involved in the trap. He further contended that the CDR and mobile location of the CBI officials is necessary to arrive at the just decision of the case as well as to carve out the conspiracy hatched by the CBI. He further contended that the aforesaid details are material piece of evidence and will help the applicant to bring into light the conspiracy hatched against him by the CBI and there is no other means to carve out such conspiracy except through CDR and mobile locations of the CBI officials and unless the CDRs are preserved which as per the law are weeded out in one year would cause great prejudice in establishing his defence at the proper stage of trial.

¶12

5- To prop up his submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following cases: -

¶13

i) Criminal Misc. Case No. 2143 of 2015, Suresh Kalmadi vs. CBI (Delhi High Court).

¶14

ii) Criminal Misc. Case No. 7738 of 2016, Vincent Joseph Chowallor vs.CBI (Kerala High Court).

¶15

iii) CRM No. 342139 of 2016 in/and CRP No. 4001 of 2016 (O & M) Prem vs. State of Haryana & another (Punjab & Haryana High Court).

¶16

iv) Application Under Section 482 No. 29345 of 2018 Tanveer Ahmad vs. State of U.P. & another (Allahabad High Court).

¶17

¶18

v) V.K. Sasikala vs. State, 2012 (9) SCC 771.

¶19

Per contra, the Learned Senior Advocate Shri Gyan Prakash appearing on behalf of CBI strongly opposed the prayer of the applicant. He raised the preliminary objection that the relief sought by the applicant is against the Telecom department, as the CDR and mobile location details can only be furnished by them but the applicant has not arrayed the Telecom department as party to the present application. He further contended that the present application is just a delay tactic being played by the applicant to delay the framing of charge. The aforesaid details cannot be furnished to the applicant because there is nothing on record which would indicate that the concerned I.O. had submitted a false report, as the trap was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, who have also annexed their respective signature on it along with the signatures of CBI team and that the applicant has also signed on the post trap memo proceedings in the presence of independent witnesses. He further opposed the prayer in view of the fact that CBI not only investigates one case but they are also involved in investigation of other matters as well, as such furnishing of aforesaid details, if leaked out, might hinder the other investigations carried out by the CBI. He further contended that the applicant by way of present application is trying to harass and intrude into the privacy and confidentiality of a premier investigating agency and as such the present application be rejected.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length & gone through the available records. After hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and the rival contention and after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the applicant is seeking direction from this Court for the preservation of the call details of the calls made from the mobile phone of the CBI officials. The grievance of the petitioner is that the calls made from the

¶21

¶22

mobile of the CBI officials would indicate the presence, location and the activities of the CBI officials. This kind of relief cannot be granted because the details of mobile calls of the CBI officials, it is not suggested to be the calls relating to the present case only and apart from the present case, the CBI being an investigating agency, has to deal with other matters and activities of various other accused and with regard to the duty assigned to them. Moreover, the accused cannot claim the record of various activities of the CBI and he cannot restrict the CBI officials in the present case only. The accused do not have any right to have the information about the final activities of the CBI officials and that cannot be limited to the activity in the present case. So, the accused is not entitled for seeking the details of records of all the calls made or calls received from the mobile phone of the CBI officials that too of the last one year, as prayed by the applicant.

¶23

Moreover, apart from above, the application no. 97 kha which was filed by the applicant before the concerned court below is on record and I have carefully perused it and the perusal of the same reflects that the application filed by the applicant is totally misconceived and it lacks the essentials details which should have been there in order to corroborate the relief sought. The application nowhere mentions anything about the specific time period for which the CDR and mobile locations sought to be preserved. Further the mobile number of some officials are also not provided and it just says “official landline number and official mobile number as per the records of CBI” and/or “as per the official record of CBI”. In view of above, the application lacks necessary information and in this view of the fact also the relief sought cannot be granted.

¶24

It is further to be borne in mind that the law does not permit a fishing and roving enquiry and in the present case it can be gathered that the applicant is trying to aim at an unknown target in darkness.

¶25

¶26

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in AIR 2005 SC 359 observed that only when the accused discloses the nature of document and its relevance, the court is to decide if the document sought to be summoned was necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case. In the present case, it cannot be allowed that the call details record and mobile location of the CBI officials, who are the officials and inspectors of nation’s most prime investigating agency, should be made public and moreover if it is allowed then it will result in the infringement of privacy of those CBI officials.

¶27

In view of above, the present application is wholly misconceived and lacks merit.

¶28

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2020 MN/-

Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore v. S.P.E./C.B.I./ Acu-Vi New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore v. S.P.E./C.B.I./ Acu-Vi New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manjoor Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Radha Krishna Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another