1 CGHC010240222026 2026:CGHC:35563-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 348 of 2026 Virendra Singh S/o Angad Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Korra Police Station Sariya District Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House O,cer Police Station Jutmil District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/08/2026 1 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the impugned order dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 49/2025. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-State to immediately secure, preserve, certify, and produce before the learned Trial Court: (a) CCTV footage from all cameras installed at Police Station Jutmil, District Raigarh for the period from 6:00 PM on 10.06.2025 to 4:35 AM on 11.06.2025, (b) Complete Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Location Details of mobile SIM No. 8770886615 (seized from the petitioner) for the period 10.06 2025; (c) Complete Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Location Details of mobile No. 9838134906 (in the name of Dharmendra Singh) for the period 10.06 2025; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court to supply a certi>ed copy of the said CCTV footage and CDRs to the petitioner through the Jail Superintendent, Bilaspur Central Jail, free of cost. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC), District Raigarh, to submit a compliance report regarding the preservation of the aforesaid CCTV footage as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh". 10.5 Any other relief or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem >t, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.” 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief is that in connection with Crime No. 212/2025 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Jutmil, District Raigarh, acting upon secret information received on 10.06.2025, the police were informed that a large quantity of cannabis (Ganja) was being transported for sale from Kankatura (Odisha) towards Raigarh via the railway line route near village Badmal in vehicle No. CG-13 BB-9200, a black Suzuki Grand Vitara. Acting on the said information, the police allegedly seized 31 kilograms and 86 grams of ganja from the petitioner's vehicle on 3 10.06.2025 at about 8:40 p.m. near the railway line towards NTPC Lara. 4 According to the petitioner, he remained in judicial custody for approximately 12 months and was transferred from Raigarh Jail to Bilaspur Central Jail. Due to this transfer, he could not remain in contact with his Advocate and therefore could not inform him about the actual facts of the incident or collect evidence regarding his illegal arrest and false implication. As per the petitioner, he had gone to Sambalpur (Odisha) in his aforesaid vehicle bearing No. CG-13 BB-9200 for domestic work and to meet his relative (Bhanja) Dharmendra Singh S/o Jayprakash Singh, aged about 41 years. While returning to Raigarh via Kelo Vihar, Mukta (Odisha), he was forcibly intercepted by two police personnel of Police Station Jutmil who were not in uniform. Thereafter, his vehicle was taken behind the Stadium near Kotwali Police Station and parked there. The police themselves allegedly took away the vehicle and loaded narcotic substances into it. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought to Police Station, Jutmil at about 7-8 p.m. on 10.06.2025 and was made to sit near the custody room. Thereafter, a completely false case was fabricated against him, and on the next day, i.e., 11.06.2025, he was formally arrested and produced before the Court, which remanded him to judicial custody. 5 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in support of the above facts, the petitioner has collected certain evidence, certiDed copies of which, along with a certiDcate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, was Dled before the learned Court below. Further, Fastag/Toll Plaza transaction history relating to vehicle No. CG-13 BB-9200, showing toll payments made during its travel on the National Highway. The NDPS Act is a special legislation and diEers signiDcantly from ordinary criminal law principles. In 4 a normal criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the allegations against an accused. However, under Sections 35, 53A, and 54 of the NDPS Act, once possession of a prohibited substance is presumed, a presumption arises regarding the culpable mental state of the accused. Consequently, the burden shifts upon the accused to prove his innocence. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was brought from the place of occurrence at about 1:30 a.m. on 11.06 2025 and his arrest was shown at 4:35 a.m. on the same date. However, the actual facts are that the petitioner was brought to the Police Station on 10.06.2025 itself at around 7-8 p.m., and his maternal nephew Dharmendra Singh was also present there. The entire sequence was recorded in the CCTV footage of the Police Station. Such footage would expose the false prosecution story, establish the petitioner's illegal detention, and demonstrate his innocence. The prosecution, in paragraph 12, sub-paragraph 2 of the seizure memo, has shown seizure of the Grand Vitara car bearing Registration No. CG-13 BB-9200. Further, in sub-paragraph 3, it has shown seizure of a Vivo Company mobile phone containing SIM No. 8770886615, having IMEI Nos. 869657061127194/ 75 and 869657061127186/25. This establishes that, according to the prosecution's own case, the petitioner was carrying the said mobile phone at the time of the alleged incident, and the same was seized by the police. Mr. Dubey further submits that a mobile phone is an advanced electronic device that records and reGects various activities of its user, including call detail records (CDRs), tower location data, and other digital information. Such information constitutes an important tool in modern criminal investigation, as it can reveal the location of a person at a particular time and identify the persons with whom he was in communication during the relevant period. On the basis of such 5 information, the Investigating O,cer collects important evidence and places the same before the learned Trial Court. Since, in the present case, the mobile phone of the petitioner was admittedly seized as per the seizure memo, its call detail records and location details have deliberately not been produced by the prosecution. Had the call detail records and location details of the seized mobile phone been produced, the petitioner could not have been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the prosecution's own case, the petitioner was carrying the seized mobile phone at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, all activities relating to the said mobile phone can certainly be obtained from the concerned telecom service provider. Such records would constitute important electronic evidence and would establish the exact location of the petitioner at the relevant time. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was accompanied by his relative Dharmendra Singh, who was carrying a mobile phone registered in his own name bearing Mobile No. 9838134906. Dharmendra Singh remained with the petitioner throughout the relevant period and was also present with him at the Police Station when the petitioner was forcibly brought there at about 7-8 p.m. on 10.06.2025. If the location details and call detail records of both the petitioner’s seized mobile phone and the mobile phone registered in the name of Dharmendra Singh are produced, the same would clearly establish that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged oEence. The electronic records sought by the petitioner through the present application are documents that cannot be procured by any person other than the concerned investigating agency/police station. Therefore, the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is necessary for obtaining the said records. 6 Mr. Dubey further submits that on 10.06.2026, the petitioner Dled 6 applications under Sections 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha, 2023 before the learned trial Court seeking directions to Police Station Jutmil, District Raigarh, in compliance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal {(2015) 8 SCC 744} and Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh {SLP (Crl.) No. 3543/2020}, the CCTV footage of all cameras installed at Police Station Jutmil, covering the period from 6:00 p.m. on 10.06.2025 to 4:35 a.m. on 11.06.2025, be immediately secured and preserved; after preservation, the said footage be duly certiDed and produced before the learned Trial Court in accordance with law; a copy of the said CCTV footage and related certiDcation be supplied to the petitioner, and further be pleased to direct the Police Station Jutmil to produce the certiDed copies of the complete Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location details pertaining to the mobile phone seized from the petitioner as per the seizure memo, bearing SIM No. 8770886615, and the mobile phone registered in the name of the petitioner's nephew Dharmendra Singh, bearing Mobile No. 9838134906 for the entire period relating to the incident dated 10.06 2025, and to place the same before the learned trial Court, because such records are necessary so that the petitioner may establish his innocence before the learned trial Court and receive fair justice. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raigarh, in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act, No. 49/2025, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide order dated 11.06.2026 which is sought to be challenged in this petition. 7 On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, opposing the petition, submits that the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The learned Trial Court, after considering the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 94 7 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has rightly declined to issue the directions sought by him. The investigation in Crime No.212/2025 has already been completed and the trial is presently in progress, with the prosecution evidence being recorded. The petitioner is essentially seeking to introduce a parallel investigation at the stage of trial by requiring the State to collect and produce CCTV footage and CDR/location details merely on the basis of his own assertion that such material would support his defence. 8 Mr. Thakur further submits that so far as the CCTV footage is concerned, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh has Dled an a,davit speciDcally stating that the CCTV camera and DVR installed at Police Station Jutmil were damaged on 05.07.2026 due to continuous heavy rain, thunder and lightning, and that the damage was duly recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha and reported to the superior o,cers. The equipment was also examined by an IT Engineer, who advised that the NVR and power adapter would require servicing or replacement. Consequently, the CCTV footage for the period sought by the petitioner is not available. There is no material whatsoever to establish that the footage was deliberately destroyed, suppressed or withheld by the prosecution. The mere assertion of the petitioner that the footage, if available, would establish his innocence cannot furnish a ground for issuing a writ of mandamus for production of a record which is no longer available. As regards the CDRs and location details of the mobile phones, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the relevance, admissibility and evidentiary value of such material can be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to lead such 8 defence evidence as may be legally permissible before the learned Trial Court, but cannot seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for conducting a roving and Dshing inquiry into the prosecution case. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner regarding preservation of CCTV footage do not create an obligation upon the State to produce footage which is admittedly unavailable, nor do they warrant interference with an interlocutory order passed in the course of an ongoing trial. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9 We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material available on record. 10 At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the present proceedings arise out of an order passed by the learned Special Judge in the course of an ongoing criminal trial. The investigation in the case has already concluded and the trial is presently at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioner essentially relates to collection, production and appreciation of evidence in the pending trial. 11 So far as the CCTV footage is concerned, this Court, by order dated 10.08.2026, speciDcally directed the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh to Dle his personal a,davit stating whether the CCTV footage of Police Station Jutmil for the relevant period was available. In compliance thereof, an a,davit has been Dled stating that the CCTV camera and DVR installed at Police Station Jutmil were damaged on 05.07.2026 due to continuous heavy rain, thunder and lightning. The In-charge of the Police Station had made corresponding entries in the Rojnamcha Sanha on the same date and had also informed the superior o,cers. It has further been stated that the equipment was examined by an IT Engineer, 9 who advised that the NVR and its power adapter would require servicing or replacement. Consequently, the CCTV footage for the period sought by the petitioner is stated to be unavailable. 12 In the circumstances noticed above, no material has been placed before this Court to establish that the non-availability of the CCTV footage is deliberate, intentional or attributable to any act of the prosecution aimed at suppressing evidence. On the contrary, the material presently available indicates that the CCTV equipment was damaged much after the period for which the footage is sought, i.e., on 05.07.2026, and that the damage was reported and the equipment was subsequently examined. The reliance placed upon D.K.Basu (supra) and Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) does not, in the facts of the present case, advance the petitioner's cause to the extent claimed. The directions concerning installation, functioning and preservation of CCTV systems cannot be construed as creating an obligation upon the Court to direct production of footage which, on the material presently available, is no longer in existence or available for retrieval. A direction for production of a document or electronic record necessarily presupposes its existence and availability. 13 The petitioner has also sought CDRs and location details of mobile Nos. 8770886615 and 9838134906. The fact that the petitioner claims such records would assist his defence does not, by itself, entitle him to a direction from this Court under Article 226 for collection of every item of evidence which, according to him, may support his defence. The relevance, admissibility and evidentiary value of such material are matters which can appropriately be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. It is also signiDcant that the petitioner has already placed before the learned Court below certain documents, including 10 material relating to Fastag/toll-plaza transactions and a certiDcate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in support of his version. The petitioner shall be at liberty to rely upon legally admissible material in support of his defence and to avail such remedies as are available to him in law during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake an examination of the rival factual versions regarding the time and manner in which the petitioner was allegedly apprehended, brought to the police station or arrested. The petitioner's assertion that he was brought to the police station on 10.06.2025 at about 7:00-8:00 p.m., and the prosecution's version regarding the time and place of his apprehension and arrest, constitute matters of evidence which are required to be tested in the course of the trial. 14 The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to convert this Court into a forum for conducting a roving inquiry into the evidence of an ongoing criminal trial, particularly when the investigation has concluded and the evidence of prosecution witnesses is being recorded. Interference at this stage would also have the eEect of permitting a parallel evidentiary exercise outside the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity or such illegality in the impugned order dated 11.06.2026 which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 15 For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.13 15:33:27 +0530