[2026:RJ-JP:416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7622/2025 Lokendra Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Infront Of Nehru Bhawan, New Mandi, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur, Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rjasthan, Through PP 2. Prakash Chand S/o Shri Mukut Bihari Lal, R/o New Mandi, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur, Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suraj Kumar Dixit, Adv. with Mr. Pankaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Puniya, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/01/2026 Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.306/2025 whereby the application filed under Section 94 of BNSS by the petitioner for summoning/preserving CDR and cell phone tower location chart of eye-witness namely- Anil Gupta, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that respondent No.2–complainant submitted a written report at Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur on 28.10.2024, alleging that on [2026:RJ-JP:416] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7622/2025] the said date, he along with his brother Deendayal and one Anil Gupta was travelling by car towards New Mandi. When the vehicle was stopped near Man Singh Circle by his brother Deendayal for purchasing vegetables from local vendors, the present petitioner along with other co-accused persons allegedly arrived at the spot and assaulted Deendayal. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 931/2024 was registered at Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 307 and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 126(2) & 117(2) of BNS, 2023 before the competent Court. Thereafter, the trial Court took cognizance for the said offences vide order dated 04.07.2025. Upon coming to know that the complainant and the alleged eye-witness, Anil Gupta, were not present at the place of the alleged incident, the petitioner moved an application under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking summoning and preservation of the Call Detail Records (CDR) and cell phone tower location chart of the alleged eye-witness Anil Gupta for the period from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on 28.10.2024. A reply to the said application was filed by the complainant. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 94 of BNSS. Hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law and facts in passing the impugned order, which is per se [2026:RJ-JP:416] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7622/2025] illegal, contrary to the material available on record and has been passed without due application of judicial mind. It is contended that as per the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023, the complainant was present at the place of the alleged incident along with his brother–victim and the alleged eye-witness, Anil Gupta. However, subsequently, upon transfer of investigation to another Investigating Officer, supplementary statements of the complainant and the victim were recorded and a transcript of the CCTV footage was prepared in their presence, which was duly signed by them. The said material clearly reveals that the complainant and the alleged eye-witness, Anil Gupta, were not present at the place of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the statements of the complainant and the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the alleged eye-witness was not present at the scene of occurrence. However, the learned trial Court failed to consider the aforesaid statements, the transcript of the CCTV footage and other material available on record, and dismissed the petitioner’s application in a cursory manner. It is further contended that for a just and fair adjudication of the matter, it is necessary to summon the cell phone tower location chart of the alleged eye-witness, Anil Gupta. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Court be directed to summon the cell phone tower location chart of the alleged eye-witness, Anil Gupta. [2026:RJ-JP:416] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7622/2025] Learned State Counsel has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record. The summoning of the call location details of the concerned witness would not, in any manner, cause prejudice to the prosecution; rather, it would substantially assist the learned trial Court in arriving at a just, fair and proper adjudication of the case. A perusal of the record would reveal that the learned trial Court has misread and misconstrued the statement of the witness, Anil Gupta, wherein he has categorically claimed himself to be an eye- witness to the alleged incident. Contrary to such categorical assertion, the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has erroneously observed that the said witness did not claim himself to be an eye-witness. Furthermore, the analysis of the video footage of the incident captured by the CCTV cameras, which is already available on record, does not depict the presence of the said witness at the place of occurrence. In the aforesaid circumstances, the call location details of the mobile phone of the witness assume great relevance and constitute a material piece of evidence, as the same would objectively establish his presence or absence at the scene of the incident and thereby aid the Court in assessing the veracity of his testimony. [2026:RJ-JP:416] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7622/2025] Hence, the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 94 of BNSS by the impugned order, which does not stand to scrutiny. It is therefore, ordered that the trial court shall, forthwith summon the cell phone location details of the alleged eye-witness Anil Gupta from service provider provided that such cell phone location details are still stored in the database. The petitioner shall be at liberty to use the cell phone location details of alleged eye- witness Anil Gupta at the appropriate stage of trial. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand decided. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /89