Police Call Details Vital for Fair NDPS Trial: Raj HC

Police Officers' Call Details Imperative for Fair NDPS Trial; Decide CDR Pleas Forthwith: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court faulted a trial court for refusing to summon the call details of the Seizure Officer and other police officials in an NDPS trial, where the accused claimed they were not at the place of seizure on the date and time alleged. Summoning them was imperative for a fair trial (para 4). All courts in Rajasthan were directed to decide such applications forthwith, as service providers delete records after one year (para 6).

Key holdings

Call details of the Seizure Officer and police officials, sought to show they were not at the seizure spot, are imperative for a fair trial and a just defence (para 4).

If the call details support the accused's allegation, the entire prosecution case would stand falsified (para 4).

The trial court must forthwith summon from the service provider the call details of the three officers named in its order, if still stored (para 5).

All courts in Rajasthan must decide applications to summon call details in criminal proceedings forthwith, without deferring them, because providers delete records after one year (para 6).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Swarn Singh @ Baba is facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar district, in Sessions Case No. 18/2019 for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act (para 3). He applied to the trial court to summon the call details of the Seizure Officer and some other police officials for 15.02.2019, the date of seizure, claiming that these officials were not present at the place of the seizure on the date and time alleged. The trial court rejected the application on 03.01.2020, and he challenged that order in the High Court (para 3). The Public Prosecutor accepted notice, and the petition was heard finally at that stage (paras 1-2).

Court's Findings

After examining the impugned order, Sandeep Mehta J. kept in view the ratio of three of the High Court's own judgments relied on by the petitioner: Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, Jasveer v. State of Rajasthan and Sheru @ Surajnath (para 4). The Court was of the firm opinion that summoning the call details was absolutely imperative for a fair trial and for giving the accused a just opportunity of defence (para 4). If the call details bore out the allegations made in the application, the entire prosecution case would stand falsified; the trial court was therefore not justified in rejecting the application, and its order did not stand scrutiny (para 4). The Court then turned to timing. Service providers follow a protocol of deleting records after one year, after which they cannot be retrieved, so a prayer to summon call details can be rendered infructuous by the passage of time. Such applications in criminal proceedings must therefore not be deferred but decided forthwith (para 6).

Legal Principle

Where the accused alleges that the police officials who made the seizure were not present at the place and time alleged, summoning their mobile call details is imperative for a fair trial and a just defence. Applications to summon call details in criminal proceedings must be decided forthwith, before providers delete the records after one year (paras 4, 6).

Precedents Relied Upon

Manju Devi (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan 2014 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1226
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4
Relied upon by the petitioner; the Court kept the ratio of this judgment in view in holding that summoning the call details was imperative for a fair trial and a just opportunity of defence.
Jasveer v. State of Rajasthan 2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 526
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4
Relied upon by the petitioner; the Court kept the ratio of this judgment in view in holding that summoning the call details was imperative for a fair trial and a just opportunity of defence.
Sheru @ Surajnath 2014 (1) R.Cr.D. 435 (Raj.)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4
Relied upon by the petitioner; the Court kept the ratio of this judgment in view in holding that summoning the call details was imperative for a fair trial and a just opportunity of defence.

Statutory Provisions