Ordering Production Of Tower Location Or Call Details May Infringe Upon Right To Privacy Of Police Officials; But An Accused’s Right To Fair Trial Prevails: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court partly allowed the application submitted under Section 91 of the CrPC for summoning the tower locations of the witnesses of the trap proceedings.

The Rajasthan High Court held that while allowing an application under Section 91 of the CrPC for production of call details and tower location details may infringe upon the right to privacy of police officials, the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails.
The Court partly allowed a Petition challenging the impugned Order of the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act which partly rejected the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 91 of the CrPC for summoning the tower locations of the witnesses of the trap proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held, “No doubt while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. Some extent of privacy can be breached in production of the said call details, as this would facilitate the learned trial Court in discovering the truth and rendering justice, which is fair to all stake holders.”
Advocate Pankaj Gupta represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner alleged that he was falsely booked in an anti-corruption case. He had filed an Application under Section 91 of the CrPC, seeking the preservation of mobile tower location details of witnesses, the complainant, and the investigating officer to establish the absence of key witnesses at the trap location. The Trial Court partially allowed the Application but rejected the plea regarding witnesses.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court reiterated that the Constitutional Courts have recognised an accused's right to invoke the provisions of Section 91 of the CrPC for obtaining documents in support of their defence.
“The denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by nonproduction of the electronic record, which is admissible under Section 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice. Section 91 Cr.P.C. helps in facilitating a fair and just resolution to the case by ensuring that relevant evidence is made available to the Court for making informed decisions and arrive at a just and fair outcome,” the Court explained.
Regarding the right to privacy of the police officials, the Court held that the same cannot be breached at the ipse dixit of the accused. “Before any such order for production of call details/tower location is passed, the accused is required to prove necessity and desirability of such evidence, which would be relevant to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused,” it remarked.
The Jaipur Bench also reiterated, “As principles of natural justice are integral part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, any denial of the best available evidence or effective and substantial hearing to accused in proving defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial.”
Consequently, the Court held that “the instant petition as well as the application submitted by him under Section 91 Cr.P.C. stands partly allowed.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Narendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:781)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Pankaj Gupta, Harshit Bhatt and Chinmay Sharma
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary