LI Network
Published on: December 09, 2023 at 11:22 IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued a directive to the trial court, emphasizing the preservation of call details of police officers involved in the arrest of an accused.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, acknowledging the potential violation of the privacy rights of police officials, asserted that the accused’s right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, supersedes the privacy concerns of law enforcement.
The court justified its decision by stating that breaching some extent of privacy in obtaining call details would aid the trial court in uncovering the truth and delivering justice that is equitable to all parties involved.
The denial of access to electronic records, admissible under Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, was deemed as potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The ruling came in response to a plea filed by Paramjit Kaur challenging the dismissal of her application under Section 91 CrPC by the Additional Sessions Judge in Hisar.
The petitioner contended that her husband faced false implication in a drug case due to his prior complaints against police officials.
The court recognized the necessity of preserving call details to refute the investigating agency’s allegations regarding the time and place of the arrest. The state’s counsel argued that revealing such information would compromise the identity of secret informers aiding the police in anti-social activities.
In its deliberation, the court highlighted the legislative intent behind Section 91 CrPC, emphasizing the need to ensure no relevant material remains undiscovered during investigations or proceedings. While acknowledging the violation of police officials’ privacy, the court asserted that the right to a fair trial and thorough investigation prevails.
The judgment clarified that the accused must demonstrate the necessity and relevance of such evidence before an order for the production of call details and tower locations is issued.
Upholding the principles of natural justice under Article 21, the court emphasized that any denial of the best available evidence or a fair hearing to the accused would constitute a denial of a free and fair trial.
Consequently, the court set aside the trial court’s order and directed it to issue necessary directions under Section 91 CrPC for the preservation and production of the call details and tower location details related to the phone numbers specified in the application.
Case Title: Paramjit Kaur v. State of Haryana,
