a specific request of the investigating officer in writing that the court may direct that copy of the CDR shall not be given to the petitioners considering the nature of the information gathered. It was also contended that in the interest of justice, it was not expedient to provide copies of those documents to the accused. Hence, petitioner was not served with the above documents. Hence, the above contention of the petitioner cannot survive. Regarding the conspiracy, it was contended that petitioner has actively participated in the conspiracy which is evidenced from the oral evidence of witnesses and evidence of witnesses and CDR. Relying on the CDR, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that much prior to the execution of the crime there were several phone calls among the accused inter se. It was also stated that, presence of the petitioner on specified day of the conspiracy is spoken by the eye witnesses. Petitioner was seen in the company of the prime accused prior to the incident. Their close acquaintance is brought on record. It was also contended that, in the course of abduction and even at the time of actual commission of offence , petitioner had contacted some of the accused. Immediately after commission of crime, petitioner was deputed for procuring a new car. The owner of the car business had specifically stated that it was the petitioner who had gone to the shop for hiring the Beat car. Since he reported that his licence was entrusted for getting heavy duty licence, ID proof of one Pranav who was known to the car dealer was handed over. Petitioner himself took the car and returned it
