2025:CGHC:320-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3019 of 2024 Chaitanya Baghel S/o Shri Bhupesh Baghel, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mansarovar Colony, Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-Old Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Kapil Sibbal, Sr Advocate with Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy AG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.01.2025 Heard Shri Kapil Sibbal, learned Senior Advocate through video conferencing, along with Shri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, learned Dy AG, appearing for the respondent/State. 1. An amendment application has been moved in the present petition for amending the prayer, and the same has been allowed by this Court on 26.11.2024. Crmp 3019 of 2024 2 2. Thus the petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayers:- “1) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash notices dated 15.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 issued u/s 94 of BNSS in relation to FIR bearing No.278/2024 dated 19.07.2024 registered at P.S. Old Bhilai, District- Durg u/s 109, 296, 3(5), 351(3) BNS; 2) That any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners.” 3. Present petition is being filed by the petitioner seeking inter alia quashing of impugned FIR bearing No.278 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 registered at PS-Old Bhilai, District- Durg under Sections 109, 296, 3(50, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (hereafter, “BNS”), and all consequential proceedings. Upon registration of said FIR, some accused persons were arrested by the Police and were interrogated. In the FIR, petitioner has not been named. On different dates, Police issued notices to the petitioner in the process of interrogation. On 15.10.2024, and on 23.10.2024, notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 94 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS 2023”), by the PS-Old Bhilai, asking GOOGLE ID and Password of his phone which was seized by the Police. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the conduct of the respondent/State is not proper or in accordance with law, as the investigation is being done with ulterior motive. Petitioner herein is not Crmp 3019 of 2024 3 even named in the FIR, and there is no evidence to connect him with the alleged incident in any manner. The respondent/State only wants to do a google tech out process on the phone of the petitioner, by which another unfair and illegal proceeding may be carried out against him. It seems that the respondent/State is conducting a fishing and roving investigation with only motive to rope in the petitioner anyhow, under political pressure. Petitioner has already handed over his both phones to the respondent in open and working state, and there is no need for him to provide GOOGLE ID and Password, as the same has no connection with the investigation of the case. Moreover, it infringes his right to privacy. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 sppl(1) SCC 335; Neelam Mahajan Singh Vs Commissioner of Police, 1993 SCC Online Del 449; and Arvind Kejriwal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 INSC 687 6. Learned counsel for State fairly states that the notices which were issued to the petitioner for providing his GOOGLE ID and Password of the mobiles which has been seized by the Police have neither made the petitioner any accused in the case, nor they were compelling him to give the GOOGLE ID and Password. He further informed to the Court that petitioner is cooperating with the investigation, as he visited the Investigating Officer twice, in pursuance of the notices issued to him. He Crmp 3019 of 2024 4 also submits that information as asked in the notice is to be provided, or not, is entirely on petitioner’s discretion. 7. Considering the fact that the statement which has been made by the learned State counsel, who has shown from the impugned notice that an option has been given to the petitioner that it is his choice to give the GOOGLE ID and Password, or not, and the respondent/State is not compelling him to do so. Hence, the Investigating agency may take recourse to other process of investigation through other mode available under the law to collect the evidence in the case. 8. In view of above, present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma