Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17812-DB CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 401 OF 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 401 of 2026 Bhaskar Chakraborty @ Bhaskar Chakravorty, S/o Late Ranjit Chakraborty, R/o 15/A, Subhash Nagar, P.O.- Sodepur, P.S.- Khardha, Dist.- 24 Pargana (North), W.B. ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. For the Resp. : Spl. P.P. ---- Dated : 18/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, in S.T. No. 123/2016, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the appellant under Section 256(3) B.N.S.S. for summoning the C.D.R. and SIM details has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case reveals that a secret information was received from the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa that a person carrying prohibited articles would arrive at Bara Jamda Railway Station by Howrah-Barbil Jan Shatabdi Express. On such information, a team was constituted comprising of officers and constables of Bara Jamda O.P. and Noamundi P.S. which started keeping a surveillance in the station. It has been alleged that at about 12:40PM after the arrival of the train, a person Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17812-DB CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 401 OF 2026 2 matching the description given had started moving towards the railway siding who was nabbed and who disclosed his name as Bhaskar Chakraborty. On a search conducted, walkie-talkie sets, batteries, chargers, naxal literature etc. were recovered which were suspected to have been brought from Kolkata for delivering to members of a banned organization at Chaibasa. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Gua P.S. Case No. 42/2015 was instituted against the appellant. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 123/2016. After framing of charge, trial proceeded and as per the appellant, the case is pending at the stage of defence evidence. In course of recording of the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had stated that he was apprehended by the Police from Barbil Railway Station and not Bara Jamda Railway Station and in order to strengthen such assertion, the appellant had preferred an application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. praying for summoning the call details, SIM details and location record of the mobile of the appellant. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 09.02.2026 which is impugned to the present appeal. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant that the C.D.R. and SIM location records would determine the actual location of the appellant when he was apprehended and would be the fulcrum upon which the case of the defence would rest. It has been submitted that the learned trial court should have considered the fact that the records which have been sought for are official records and it is beyond the purview of the appellant to obtain such records. It is the consistent case of the appellant that he was not apprehended at the place which has been shown by the Police and to arrive at Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17812-DB CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 401 OF 2026 3 a just decision, the application of the appellant should have been allowed. 6. Learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the application preferred by the appellant was with an object to delay the disposal of the trial. The records which have been sought for by the appellant are not retrievable and hence the impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. The appellant, as per the case of the prosecution, was apprehended at Bara Jamda Railway Station but the appellant claims he was apprehended at Barbil Railway Station. The learned trial court in the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had tried to obtain the records, but the Department of Telecommunication refused to deliver such information on account of the inactive status of the phone which signifies that the call details and location of the mobile cannot be retrieved. It also seems that throughout the trial which is continuing for a decade, the appellant remained silent and even after a considerable delay after recording of the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the application was preferred under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has appropriately considered the application preferred by the appellant and has rightly rejected the same. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently, this appeal is dismissed. 8. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Dated: 18th June, 2026 Preet/- Uploaded on: 20/06/2026.