2026:HHC:34193 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 839 of 2026 Reserved on: 10.8.2026 Date of Decision: 14.8.2026. Akash Mahajan …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondent-State : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, H.P., vide which the application filed by the petitioner/accused for summoning call detail record, customer application form and tower location of the police officials was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police filed a charge sheet against the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34193 petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC, corresponding to Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, for summoning call detail records, Customer Application Form and Tower Location of the Police Official. It was asserted that the occurrence took place on 08.09.2024. The movement and location of the police officials mentioned in para-2 of the application on 08/09.09.2024 08.09.2024 from 06.00 a.m. till 06.00 a.m. is material for the adjudication of the case. Therefore, a direction was sought to the Mobile Service Provider to produce the call detail record, customer application form and tower location of the police officials. 3. The application was opposed by the State. 4. The learned Trial Court held that the accused had a right to demand the call details of the police officials, but this right was not absolute. The police officials had privacy, which could not be violated. The petitioner had failed to show the relevance of the documents sought by him. Hence, the application was dismissed. 2026:HHC:34193 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The accused had a right to a fair trial, which would outweigh the privacy of the police officials. The application specifically mentioned that call detail records, customer application form and tower location details were required to establish the movement and location of the police official to test the correctness of the recovery. The statutory presumption operated against the accused, and the accused was entitled to bring the material to establish his innocence. Privacy is not an absolute right and should not have been used to reject the application. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by learned Trial Court be set aside. 6. I have heard Mr K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 7. Mr K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the privacy of the police officials was being infringed by the production of call detail records. The 4 2026:HHC:34193 petitioner/applicant never sought the details of the conversation between the police official and the other person, but he was interested in establishing the location of the police officials. The documents sought to be produced on the record were essential to determine the truth of the prosecution version. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bavita Tandon Vs. M/s Saini Traders and another 2026:HHC:5853 in support of his submission. 8. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that police officials were also entitled to privacy. The relevance of the document sought to be summoned under Section 91 of CrPC was not established on record. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted under instructions that the petitioner is not interested in any other detail except the location of the police official and the 2026:HHC:34193 Consumer Application Form to establish that the phone number actually belongs to the police official. Therefore, the primary reason assigned by the learned Trial Court that production of the document would infringe the privacy of the police officials does not survive. 11. The prosecution came with a specific case that the police had apprehended the petitioner at a particular place. Therefore, the location of the police official would corroborate or contradict this version, and would help the Court in determining the truth of the prosecution version. It was laid down by this Court in State of HP versus Manohar Lal, 2020(1) Himachal Law Reporter 468 that the production of call detail records can be ordered by the Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. if it would help the defence in establishing innocence. Therefore, the Court can order the production of the call detail records containing the location of the police officials and the customer application forms. 12. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the mobile operators are directed to produce the call detail record containing the location only on 08/09.09.2024 from 6.00 AM till 6.00 AM and customer application form of SI 6 2026:HHC:34193 Gurbaksh, Constable Kewal Singh, Constable Jitender Singh, HHG Ajay Kumar, Constable Sandeep Kumar, HC Dalip Singh, HHG Rajinder Singh and HHG Tarbij Singh on furnishing of the details of their mobile numbers and service providers. 13. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th August, 2026 (Chander)