Right of accused to fair trial prevails over right to privacy of police officials: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The court said that the legislative intent behind enactment of Section 94 BNSS is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings.

It further added, “No doubt while issuing the appropriate directions for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 94 BNSS 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.”

Section 94 allows a court or police officer to issue a summons or written order to make a person produce a document, electronic communication, or other thing needed for an investigation, inquiry, or trial.

Case

The court was dealing with an accused’s plea against the trial court’s order dismissing his plea seeking call data records (CDRs) and mobile location data of police officials.

The prosecution alleged that police officials received secret information that the accused along with another person were attempting to sell some intoxicating substance. It was alleged that on seeing the police, they tried to flee from the spot but were apprehended.

It was further alleged that 900 gram of charas was recovered from the accused and 315 grams of opium was recovered from the co-accused. The accused sought production of the mobile location of three police officials.

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mobile tower location and call detail records of officials needs to be preserved so that the accused can defend his case.

On the other hand the counsel for the state argued that the accused has no right to claim this information as it will amount to violation of privacy.

Ruling

The court noted that Section 94 BNSS 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 arriving at a just and fair outcome.

It observed that production and requisitioning of the call details and mobile tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever.

It further noted, “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.”

The court however also observed that 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.

Thus, the court directed, “the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Sonipat is hereby set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to pass necessary directions under Section 94 BNSS for preserving and production of the call details/tower location details.”