Delhi High Court: No Embargo On Production Of CDRs Or Location Charts Of Raiding Team And Police Informers With Necessary Precautions To Safety And Privacy

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no embargo to the production of CDRs/location charts before the court at an appropriate stage while taking necessary precautions regarding the safety and privacy of the members of the raiding team and the police informers.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by an Accused challenging an order of the Trial Court dismissing his Application seeking preservation of CDRs and Location Charts of himself, the Deputy Officer and the member of raiding team involved during recovery, seizure and sampling under the NDPS Act.

The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, "...there is no embargo to the production of CDRs/location charts before the court at an appropriate stage while taking necessary precautions regarding the safety and privacy of the members of the raiding team and the police informers."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sumer Singh Boparai, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Taran Srivastav.

Facts of the Case

The case of the prosecution was that on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the present Petitioner was apprehended along with a truck, from which 25.180 kgs. of opium was recovered. The Petitioner filed an Application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Trial Court seeking preservation of CDRs and location charts of Petitioner members of the raiding team and Duty Officer which was dismissed.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider that the Petitioner did not seek the production of the CDR and the location charts but only prayed for preservation of the same. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2014 and CBI Vs. Neeraj Kumar, 2025.

It was submitted that the data i.e. CDRs and location charts were maintained with the telecom companies only for the two years, and therefore unless preserved, they would be automatically deleted by May 2026. He submitted that the trial is still at the pre-charge stage and there is no likelihood of its commencing soon and thus there is a real and imminent risk of this critical data being lost before it can be used in the Petitioner’s defence.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) submitted that Section 94 BNSS does not give any right to the Accused to approach the court at the pre-defence stage. He further submitted that the prayer for preservation of the records on the ground that the same may get destroyed over the period of time has no legal backup, since there is no provision in law which entitles an Accused to seek such directions.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the reliance placed on Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) is misplaced, in as much as, in the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of Right of the Accused to summon documents in his defence before the commencement of Trial.

Noting that there is no embargo to the production of CDRs/ location charts, the Court observed, "Be that as it may, as of now, by virtue of his application, petitioner only sought the preservation of the CDRs and location charts and not for its production. The Court is of the view that if such data is not preserved, there is likelihood that the same may get lost and may not be available to the petitioner in support of his defence."

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause  Title: Mangal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025:DHC:9104)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sumer Singh Boparai, Advocate Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate Abhilash Kumar Pathak, Advocate Sirhaan Seth, Advocate Shubham Raj Anand

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Taran Srivastav

Click here to read/ download Order