Introduction:

In the case of Narendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 27], the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reinforced the fundamental right of an accused to a free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner had challenged an order by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which rejected his plea under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The petitioner sought the preservation of tower location details and call records of the complainant, investigating officer, and other members of the trap party. He argued that these details were crucial to prove his innocence in an anti-corruption case where he alleged fabrication of evidence. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the accused’s right to a fair trial outweighed the right to privacy of police officials, directing the trial court to summon relevant call/tower location details while safeguarding unrelated private data.

Arguments:

The petitioner contended that the case against him was based on fabricated evidence, asserting that no trap proceedings were conducted and that the alleged witnesses mentioned in the complaint were not present at the scene. Citing CCTV footage that purportedly corroborated this claim, the petitioner argued for the preservation of mobile tower locations and call details of the witnesses to substantiate his defence. He relied on Section 91, CrPC, which permits requisitioning documents or items crucial for evidence. Denying him access to such information, he argued, would result in a miscarriage of justice and violate his right to a fair trial. The petitioner further invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the precedence of fair trial rights over the privacy of the police officials.

The State opposed the application, arguing that the preservation and production of call records would infringe on the privacy rights of the investigating officers and members of the trap party. It claimed that the petitioner’s application was an attempt to derail the investigation and impede justice. The State emphasized that any breach of privacy should be strictly necessary and justified, warning that allowing such requests indiscriminately could set a dangerous precedent. The prosecution also referred to existing guidelines regarding the limited disclosure of sensitive information, arguing that the petitioner’s request exceeded the boundaries of necessity and proportionality.

Judgment:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, after a detailed examination of the case, emphasized the balance between the competing rights of the accused and the police officials. He noted that Section 91, CrPC, is designed to ensure the discovery of all relevant evidence necessary for justice, thus safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial. The Court observed that denying the petitioner access to the tower location details, especially when such evidence was vital to his defence, would result in a miscarriage of justice. Justice Dhand reiterated that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and takes precedence over the right to privacy of police officials, particularly in cases involving allegations of procedural irregularities and fabrication of evidence.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that privacy concerns could not be entirely ignored and must be safeguarded to the extent possible. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that while the production of call records may infringe on privacy, the scope of such disclosure should be limited to the extent necessary for justice. In the present case, Justice Dhand directed that only the tower locations of the two witnesses’ phone numbers be preserved and summoned. Details of incoming and outgoing calls were to be redacted to protect privacy.

The Court highlighted that the petitioner bore the burden of demonstrating the necessity and desirability of the evidence sought under Section 91, CrPC. It noted that the petitioner had sufficiently established the relevance of tower location data in proving his claim that the witnesses were not present during the alleged trap proceedings. The Court concluded that denying the accused access to such critical evidence would impede his right to present a defence and contradict the legislative intent behind Section 91, CrPC. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order of the Special Judge, and directed the trial court to summon the relevant call and tower location details of the two witnesses, ensuring that only location data was disclosed while protecting unrelated private information.