Partly allowed

Vikram Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2022CRLMP/1608/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition invoked under Section 482 CrPC seeking enforcement of a trial court order for discovery. While upholding the necessity of police call details pending Supreme Court judgment, the court set aside the directive for BSF personnel call data as unnecessary, considering their role as recovery witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Production of call details and locations of police personnel to be made available to trial Court in sealed envelop; Order BSF personnel details set aside.

Vikram Kumar Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1608/2022

¶3

Vikram Kumar S/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Chak 09, P.S. Muklawa, Dist Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Jaipur.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police, Police Range, Bikaner.

¶9

The Supdt. Of Police, Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

The SHO, P.S. Raisinghnagar, Dist Sri Ganganagar.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binja Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

03/08/2022

¶16

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), and prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to comply with the order dated 26.11.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, Sri Ganganagar, whereby petitioner's application under Section 91 of the Code was allowed. 2. Mr. Binja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been wrongly enroped in the case of NDPS Act and despite not being present at the scene, not only the seizure, even petitioner's arrest has been stage managed vindictively.

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CRLMP-1608/2022]

¶19

In order to support his stand/alibi, the petitioner moved an application dated 31.05.2021 under Section 91 of the Code and prayed that mobile location of various police officials and CCTV footage of the area in question be collected. 4. Petitioner's aforesaid application came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.11.2021 and direction was issued to the State/prosecution that the call details and mobile tower location of the police personnel and BSF personnel from 6:00 am of 03.04.2021 to 11:59 pm of 04.04.2021 and copy of Rojnamcha of P.S. Raisingh Nagar be summoned.

¶20

In spite of the order aforesaid, the prosecution did not comply with the said order citing that the effect and operation of the order dated 18.02.2020, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.273/2020 : Swarn Singh @ Baba Vs. State of Raj. has been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 12.07.2021, passed in SLP No.3146/2021.

¶21

Mr. Binja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that true it is, that the effect and operation of the order dated 18.02.2020, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, but then, the decision of the matter by Hon'ble the Supreme Court may take some time and in case the order of this Court is upheld, the order passed in petitioner's favour by the trial Court would be rendered nugatory, inasmuch as, after expiry of two years, the mobile company would erase the relevant date from its electronic record and the possibility of recovery of CCTV footage of the area in question would be minimal.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CRLMP-1608/2022]

¶24

Mr. Siddiqui, learned GA-cum-AAG, on the other hand, submitted that the mobile tower location can be summoned, however producing call details of the police personnel and BSF personnel would not only be an intrusion in their privacy but is likely to divulge particulars of the informant and other information not to be disclosed in public interest.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court finds substance in what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that after passing of two years, even if call details and mobile location are deemed necessary and order of this Court in Swarn Singh is affirmed, it would be impossible to retrieve such details as no mobile company is obligated to preserve the record beyond a period of two years.

¶26

So far as BSF personnel are concerned, they are witnesses to the recovery of the substance and, therefore, this Court does not find any need for obtaining call details and call locations of BSF personnel. The order of the trial Court to this extent is set aside. 11. So far as police personnel are concerned, the order of the trial Court is in accordance with law (subject of course to the final adjudication by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above referred SLP pending before it). 12. The present petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer concerned to obtain and produce before the trial Court call details and locations of the police personnel mentioned in para No.5 of the application in a sealed envelop. The remaining part of order in relation to roznamcha shall be complied with.

¶27

The trial Court shall consider petitioner's defence in light of the mobile call details and locations so produced by the Station

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CRLMP-1608/2022]

¶30

House Officer. The copy of such details shall not be given to the petitioner.

¶31

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

142-Ramesh/-

Vikram Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Kumar v. State

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

Bhikh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Meghna Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Mafat Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Mahalaxmi Food Products Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan

Ladu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan