1 2025:CGHC:60008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3739 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kaushik S/o Ramkhilawan Kaushik Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village- Konargarh, P.S.- Mulmula, Post- Konargarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- E-Block, H.N. 15, Police Line Balodabazaar City Kotwali- Balodabazaar, District- Balodabazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- City Kotwali Balodabazaar, District- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Prosecutrix Abc (Details Of The Respondent No. 2 Is Being Filed In The Closed Envelop To Secure The Identity Of The Prosecutrix) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 whereby the learned Special Judge (Atrocities ) Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused in FIR No. 597/2024 Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offences under Section 74 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, 1989. The said case is presently pending trial before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) and registered as Special Case STSC/12/2024. On 06.09.2024 the prosecutrix (working as a Lady Constable) was on duty to get a lady admitted to mental hospital Sendari. While returning back to Balodabazar in police vehicle which was driven by the petitioner at around 8:00 pm when vehicle reached to Karhibazaar one of the staff get down from the vehicle and thereafter only petitioner and prosecutrix were left in the vehicle. On the way the appellant sought favour from the prosecutrix to visit to some other place alongwith him and said proposal was refused by the prosecutrix. On her refusal the petitioner outraged her modesty by touching her inappropriately. Thereafter, on reaching at police station the prosecutrix stepped down from vehicle and started shouting raising alarm for help. After that, on 3 10.09.2024 the FIR was lodged against the petitioner. After registration of FIR, the police authority initiated their investigation and on completion of investigation the final report was filed. During registration of FIR the petitioner was under apprehension of arrest filed anticipatory bail application and the Hon’ble High Court was kind enough to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner on 20.11.2024. During pendency of trial the prosecution have examined witnesses in support of the case. Moreover, the prosecutrix have also been examined before the learned Court on 05.07.2025. In between that, during the departmental proceeding of the petitioner, the petitioner has received chargesheet from department and against which petitioner has filed his reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, during the pendency of trial petitioner has filed an application under Section 94 of BNSS, 2023 and he pleaded and prayed that, prosecutrix had alleged the act of outraging the modesty by the petitioner but on the said incident date the prosecutrix was continuously exchanging words on mobile phone with some third person. Moreover, during htre cross examination before the learned Court below she refused for any long mobile conversation. Therefore, to ensure fair trial and for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding the call records is necessary and to obtain such evidence the learned Court is required to issue summons for the production of evidence. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that no private individual can directly obtain the call detail records or mobile tower location data from any telecom service provider due to stringent regulations regarding consumer privacy and data security. Such records which are “electronic communication” and “digital evidence” under Section 94 of BNSS are protected and can only be lawfully produced under a mandate, summons or direction from a Court of Law or a competent Law Enforcement Agency in the course of an investigation or trial. He relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (2014) SCC Online SC 1833, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that an accused has every right to summon whatever is relevant and admissible in his defence, including electronic record relevant to finding out the location of the persons concerned. 5. Learned State Counsel raised an objection to the present petition and has prayed for its dismissal on the ground that the same is baseless and not necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that the present petitioner moved an application seeking a direction for production of call detail records and location details of the prosecutrix pertaining to the period from 06.09.2024 to 09.09.2024, on the ground that the alleged incident 5 is stated to have occurred on 06.09.2024 between 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM, and during the said period the prosecutrix was allegedly in telephonic conversation with some other person. Upon hearing the submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident that the application is founded on speculative grounds. It is well settled that call detail records are personal documents and, in appropriate cases, may be obtained by the concerned party through lawful means. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how the proposed records are indispensable at this stage of the proceedings or how non-production of the same would cause prejudice to the accused. 8. The trial court has rightly observed that the accused may obtain such call detail records, if permissible in law, by approaching the concerned authority. The application does not disclose sufficient grounds warranting interference or issuance of directions by the Court. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order. The order passed by the trial court is based on sound reasoning and does not call for interference. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima