IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 61 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Raj Mal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. HC Naresh Kumar, PS Sadar, District Mandi, present with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in CrMA No.102 of 2025, titled Raj Mal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), having been filed by the petitioner-accused for preserving the CDRs, Tower Location and Customer Application Form, came to be dismissed, petitioner-accused has 2 approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of BNSS. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR No. 22 of 2024 came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 28.1.2024 under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the basis of recovery of contraband i.e. 288 grams of Chitta from the conscious possession of the petitioner-accused. During pendency of the trial before learned Special Judge, accused preferred application under Section 94 of BNSS, praying therein for preserving the CDRs, Tower Location and Customer Application Form forthwith, however such prayer of him was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.12.2025. 3. In nutshell, case of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner-accused has been falsely implicated and with a view to prove his false implication, he sought preservation of CDR as detailed herein above. It is averred in the petition that petitioner had received one ransom call and immediately, thereafter FIR was lodged against him, as such, he has reason to presume and believe that ransom 3 call was made at the behest of police officials or their agents, which fact could only be established with the preservation of data as is sought to be preserved through afore application. 4. Though having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, there was no occasion, if any, for this court to interfere with the same, but yet with a view to do complete justice and afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner-accused to prove his innocence, this Court specifically called upon the learned Additional Advocate General vide order dated 8.4.2026 to verify whether the record, otherwise sought to be preserved through application under Section 94 of the BNSS, filed by the petitioner, can be retrieved from the concerned Mobile Network Operator at this stage or not?. 5. Afore order was passed pursuant to specific plea taken by the learned Additional Advocate General on the given date that prayer, if any, made by the petitioner through afore application cannot be accepted at this stage, for the reason that Mobile Network Operator only preserves data of preceding two years, whereas in the case at hand, data of CDR is being demanded for a period beyond two years. 4 6. Pursuant to order dated 8.4.2026, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 17.4.2026 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith certain documents suggestive of the fact that pursuant to directions issued by this court, matter was taken up with the Nodal Officers of Airtel and Reliance (Jio), who vide communication dated 16/17.4.2026, have categorically stated that they preserve CDRs for preceding two years only, whereas the details sought are beyond two years, as such, CDRs of mobile Nos. 98572-01182 (Airtel) and 70183-54648 (Reliance Jio) for the period between 28.12.2023 to 27.1.2024 are not available. 7. In view of the afore fact, no orders with regard to preservation of record, as sought for in the application, can be passed. Even if court agrees with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be served by issuing directions to the respondent- State as well as Mobile Network Companies to preserve the data, which is otherwise not available at this stage. 8. As such, present petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. However before parting, this Court wishes to make an observation that as and when application for preservation of CDR or tower 5 location, is made in the competent court of law, same should be decided at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of filing of such application so that prayer made for preservation, if permissible, is considered at earliest. 9. Registry is directed to make available copy of instant order to all the courts, enabling them to comply with direction contained in this order so that no prejudice is caused to the accused or investigating agency on account of delay in disposal of such kind of applications. April 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge