IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 127 SURESH CHAND MEENA CENTRAL BUREAU OF ANOTHER CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU CRM-22812- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 19.05.2025 (Annexure A Nagar. same are allowed and Annexure P CRM-22813- BNSS seeking advancement of the date of hearing in the main case. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) (2) SURESH CHAND MEENA Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THR. ITS DIRECTOR AND Date of decision: July 02 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akashdeep Singh, S.P.P., CBI. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) -2025 and CRM-22794-2025 The instant applications have been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for placing on record 19.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, In view of the averments made in the instant application allowed and Annexure P-1 is taken on record. -2025 and CRM-22795-2025 The instant applications have BNSS seeking advancement of the date of hearing in the main case. Notice in the applications. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36767-2023 (O&M) CRM-M-40955-2023 ...Petitioner ATION THR. ITS DIRECTOR AND ...Respondent Date of decision: July 02, 2025 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Akashdeep Singh, S.P.P., CBI. been filed under Section 528 of for placing on record order dated 1) passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, SAS In view of the averments made in the instant applications, the taken on record. been filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking advancement of the date of hearing in the main case. ...Petitioner ATION THR. ITS DIRECTOR AND ...Respondent 528 of order dated SAS , the been filed under Section 528 Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.03 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36767 accepts notice on behalf of the respondent allowed, and the Main case 1. of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preserve call details, tower location and CAF (application form) of Phone No.97792-41203, 73555 97800-23219 of VI, 98762 30.09.2021 for effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by way of setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P arising out of FIR No.RC0052021A0021 dated 03.09.2021 under Section 7 of Prevention of Cor 2. Court erred in mechanically (Annexure P application sought a direction for summoning and preserving call records relating to the following individuals (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 36767-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40955 On the asking of the Court, Mr. Akashdeep Singh, S.P.P., CBI tice on behalf of the respondent-CBI. In view of the averments made in the application allowed, and the main cases are taken on board today itself. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Procedure, 1973 seeking issuance of direction call details, tower location and CAF (application form) of Phone 41203, 73555-22555 of Jio, 99885 23219 of VI, 98762-24788 of Airtel for the period 30.09.2021 for effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by way of setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P arising out of FIR No.RC0052021A0021 dated 03.09.2021 under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at CBI, ACB, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting the application dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure P-4), without proper consideration or hearing. T application sought a direction for summoning and preserving call records relating to the following individuals: - The complainant, Jagtar Singh (father of the complainant), Gurvinder Singh, Deputy Chief Engineer, Naresh Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, Suresh Singh Rathore, Verifying Officer. 40955-2023 -2- Mr. Akashdeep Singh, S.P.P., CBI CBI. In view of the averments made in the applications, the same are taken on board today itself. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Code seeking issuance of directions to summon and call details, tower location and CAF (application form) of Phone 22555 of Jio, 99885-54439, 96901-66661 and 24788 of Airtel for the period from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021 for effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by way of setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) arising out of FIR No.RC0052021A0021 dated 03.09.2021 under Section 7 , registered at CBI, ACB, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial rejecting the application dated 01.12.2021 , without proper consideration or hearing. The said application sought a direction for summoning and preserving call records Jagtar Singh (father of the complainant), Gurvinder Singh, Deputy Chief Engineer, Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, Suresh Singh Rathore, Verifying Officer. Mr. Akashdeep Singh, S.P.P., CBI are Code to summon and call details, tower location and CAF (application form) of Phone 66661 and from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021 for effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by 6) arising out of FIR No.RC0052021A0021 dated 03.09.2021 under Section 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial rejecting the application dated 01.12.2021 he said application sought a direction for summoning and preserving call records Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.03 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36767 3. on telephonic communication production of CDRs of the above individuals is imperative for ensuring a fair trial and for effective cross 4. right to obtain result in the prescribed under Telecom Regulations. 5. call records of G 30.09.2021, alleging that he was actively associated with the complainant and the Investigating Officer and was involved relevant Department (RCF). 6. opposing the petition, submits that the present plea and factually misconceived. It has been pointed out that the earlier application of the petitioner under Section and rejected vide a reasoned order dated 16.11.2022 Court, which attained finality as the petitioner did not challenge the said order through revision or appeal 7. the CBI that months of the order of the learned trial Court is a disguised attempt to 36767-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40955 It is argued that the FIR in the instant case is based significantly on telephonic communication, and therefore production of CDRs of the above individuals is imperative for ensuring a fair trial and for effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submits that the right to right to obtain exculpatory evidence and delay in seeking such CDRs could the loss of crucial material due to the two prescribed under Telecom Regulations. Specific emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel on the call records of Gurvinder Singh for the period from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021, alleging that he was actively associated with the complainant and the Investigating Officer and was involved relevant Department (RCF). Per contra, learned Standing opposing the petition, submits that the present plea and factually misconceived. It has been pointed out that the earlier application of the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was duly considered ected vide a reasoned order dated 16.11.2022 Court, which attained finality as the petitioner did not challenge the said order through revision or appeal. It has been further argued by the learned Standing counsel for the CBI that the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after 8 months of the order of the learned trial Court is a disguised attempt to 40955-2023 -3- It is argued that the FIR in the instant case is based significantly , and therefore, the preservation and production of CDRs of the above individuals is imperative for ensuring a examination of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submits that the right to a fair trial includes the evidence and delay in seeking such CDRs could loss of crucial material due to the two-year retention limit Specific emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel on the urvinder Singh for the period from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021, alleging that he was actively associated with the complainant and the Investigating Officer and was involved in the functioning of the , learned Standing counsel for the CB, while opposing the petition, submits that the present plea is both legally untenable and factually misconceived. It has been pointed out that the earlier 91 Cr.P.C. was duly considered ected vide a reasoned order dated 16.11.2022 by the learned trial Court, which attained finality as the petitioner did not challenge the said It has been further argued by the learned Standing counsel for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after 8 months of the order of the learned trial Court is a disguised attempt to It is argued that the FIR in the instant case is based significantly , the preservation and production of CDRs of the above individuals is imperative for ensuring a the evidence and delay in seeking such CDRs could etention limit Specific emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel on the urvinder Singh for the period from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021, alleging that he was actively associated with the complainant in the functioning of the counsel for the CB, while is both legally untenable and factually misconceived. It has been pointed out that the earlier 91 Cr.P.C. was duly considered by the learned trial Court, which attained finality as the petitioner did not challenge the said It has been further argued by the learned Standing counsel for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after 8 months of the order of the learned trial Court is a disguised attempt to Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.03 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36767 reopen issues already adjudicated and amounts to the abuse of the law. 8. demonstrated how the CDRs of 6 mobile numbers including those of individuals not named in the FIR or cited as prosecution witnesses (notably Gurvinder Singh), are relevant or that Gurvinder Singh has no recorded involvement in the investigation, verification or trap proceedings. 9. the relevant call records of the complainant, Verifying Officer and trap laying officer have already been seized and are part of the chargesheet. Seeking additional CDRs of unrelated individuals may jeopardize the confidentiality 10. relevant material placed on record. 11. (Annexure P specific, cogent or detailed averments explaining the relevance of the requested call records to his defense. 12. concerning the demand or receipt of any illegal gra Gurvinder Singh 36767-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40955 reopen issues already adjudicated and amounts to the abuse of the On merits, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the CDRs of 6 mobile numbers including those of individuals not named in the FIR or cited as prosecution witnesses (notably Gurvinder Singh), are relevant or necessary for the defence. It is contended that Gurvinder Singh has no recorded involvement in the investigation, or trap proceedings. Learned Standing counsel for the CBI has further submitted that the relevant call records of the complainant, Verifying Officer and trap laying officer have already been seized and are part of the chargesheet. Seeking additional CDRs of unrelated individuals may jeopardize the confidentiality of sources and impair the integrity of the investigation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the vant material placed on record. Upon perusal of the application dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure P-4), this Court finds that the petitioner has faile specific, cogent or detailed averments explaining the relevance of the requested call records to his defense. There is no allegation against Jagtar Singh concerning the demand or receipt of any illegal gra Gurvinder Singh is neither an accused nor 40955-2023 -4- reopen issues already adjudicated and amounts to the abuse of the process of On merits, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the CDRs of 6 mobile numbers including those of individuals not named in the FIR or cited as prosecution witnesses (notably necessary for the defence. It is contended that Gurvinder Singh has no recorded involvement in the investigation, Learned Standing counsel for the CBI has further submitted that the relevant call records of the complainant, Verifying Officer and trap- laying officer have already been seized and are part of the chargesheet. Seeking additional CDRs of unrelated individuals may jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Upon perusal of the application dated 01.12.2021 4), this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make any specific, cogent or detailed averments explaining the relevance or necessity There is no allegation against Jagtar Singh or Gurvinder Singh concerning the demand or receipt of any illegal gratification. In fact, a prosecution witness nor is he process of On merits, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the CDRs of 6 mobile numbers including those of individuals not named in the FIR or cited as prosecution witnesses (notably necessary for the defence. It is contended that Gurvinder Singh has no recorded involvement in the investigation, Learned Standing counsel for the CBI has further submitted that - laying officer have already been seized and are part of the chargesheet. Seeking additional CDRs of unrelated individuals may jeopardize the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Upon perusal of the application dated 01.12.2021 d to make any or necessity or Gurvinder Singh tification. In fact, a prosecution witness nor is he Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.03 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36767 linked in any capacity silent as to how his 13. that such CDRs may assist (in effective cross does not meet the threshold of specificity required under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised to enable phishing or roving inquiries, especially where the request pertains to senior officers and personnel of the CBI, whose records may contain sensitive or confidential communications. 14. distinguish between the nature and purpose of the CDRs sought for each individual number. There is a complete lack of clarity or justification regarding how each requested record relates to the defense of th 15. cogent reasons for declining the application, found in its reasoning appropriate proceedings further weakens his case. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. after considerable delay and without exhausting other remedies, is not justified. 16. that both the present petition failed to demonstrate 36767-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40955 linked in any capacity to the trap proceedings. The application is completely silent as to how his call records are relevant. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such CDRs may assist (in effective cross does not meet the threshold of specificity required under Section 91 Cr.P.C. nder Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised to enable phishing inquiries, especially where the request pertains to senior officers personnel of the CBI, whose records may contain sensitive or confidential communications. Furthermore, the application moved by the petitioner does not distinguish between the nature and purpose of the CDRs sought for each individual number. There is a complete lack of clarity or justification regarding how each requested record relates to the defense of th The learned trial Court, in its order da t reasons for declining the application, found in its reasoning. The failure by the petitioner to challenge that order in e proceedings further weakens his case. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. after considerable delay and without exhausting other remedies, is In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion the present petitions are devoid of any merit. The petitioner has demonstrate the legal necessity and 40955-2023 -5- to the trap proceedings. The application is completely The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such CDRs may assist (in effective cross-examination) is vague and does not meet the threshold of specificity required under Section 91 Cr.P.C. nder Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised to enable phishing inquiries, especially where the request pertains to senior officers personnel of the CBI, whose records may contain sensitive or the application moved by the petitioner does not distinguish between the nature and purpose of the CDRs sought for each individual number. There is a complete lack of clarity or justification regarding how each requested record relates to the defense of the petitioner. The learned trial Court, in its order dated 16.11.2022, has given t reasons for declining the application, and no infirmity or perversity is . The failure by the petitioner to challenge that order in e proceedings further weakens his case. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. after considerable delay and without exhausting other remedies, is In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion devoid of any merit. The petitioner has and relevance of the material to the trap proceedings. The application is completely The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and does not meet the threshold of specificity required under Section 91 Cr.P.C. nder Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised to enable phishing inquiries, especially where the request pertains to senior officers personnel of the CBI, whose records may contain sensitive or the application moved by the petitioner does not distinguish between the nature and purpose of the CDRs sought for each individual number. There is a complete lack of clarity or justification ted 16.11.2022, has given and no infirmity or perversity is . The failure by the petitioner to challenge that order in e proceedings further weakens his case. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. after considerable delay and without exhausting other remedies, is In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion devoid of any merit. The petitioner has Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.03 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36767 sought, and the petition conclusively determined by the Hon’ble High Court. 17. 18. case. July 02, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur 36767-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40955 sought, and the petitions appear to be an attempt to re nclusively determined by the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, both the instant petition Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 40955-2023 -6- to be an attempt to re-agitate matters nclusively determined by the Hon’ble High Court. the instant petitions stand dismissed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No agitate matters Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.03 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh