APHC010229162026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TENTH OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2247/2026 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Macherla Rural Circle, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P. at Amaravati. ...Petitioner/Complainant AND Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o.Pinnelli Venkateswara Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ: Ex-MLA, R/o.Macherla, Palnadu District. ...Respondent/Accused No.6 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying, that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Macherla in Crl.M.P.No.1460 of 2025 in Cr.No.40 of 2025 of Veldurthy Police Station. Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant/State : Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent/Accused No.6: Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri 2 Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel for the respondent/accused No.6 The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the State/Complainant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, impugning the order dated 13.03.2026, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1460 of 2025, in Cr.No.40 of 2025 of Veldurthi Police Station, on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Macherla, whereby the Service Provider/Telecom Operator was directed to preserve the call data logs and tower location particulars of the investigating team and the de facto complainant for the period from 24.05.2025 to 26.05.2025, as specified in the application filed by Accused No.6 under Section 94 of BNSS. Proceedings before the Learned Magistrate 2. The facts pleaded in the petition filed before the learned Magistrate in brief, are as follows: a. The respondent/Accused No.6 is facing allegations for offences punishable under Sections 61(2) and 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232. It is stated that the de facto complainant, one Thota Anjaneyulu, is an agricultural 1 in short ‘BNSS’ 2 in short ‘BNS’ 3 labourer and resident of Gundlapadu Village. In the village, internal rivalry existed within the Telugu Desam Party, led by Thota Venkata Ramaiah/Accused No.1, and another faction led by his paternal uncle, Javisetti Venkateswarlu @ Moddaiah (Deceased No.1). Accused No.2, a leader of the YSRCP, owing to animosity towards Deceased No.1, conspired with his followers to eliminate him. It is further stated that Accused No.1 also developed a grudge against Deceased No.1 on account of internal rivalry within the party. b. On 23.05.2025, the de facto complainant, along with his brother, i.e., Deceased No.1, and Deceased No.2/J. Koteswararao, attended a marriage at Nakkagudem in the State of Telangana. While returning, on 24.05.2025 at about 4.45 p.m., they were stopped by Accused No.5, whereupon Accused No.1 rammed the deceased persons‟ motorcycle with a Scorpio vehicle. It is further stated that Accused Nos.1 to 4 alighted from the Scorpio and assaulted Deceased Nos.1 and 2 with stones, causing their deaths, and threatened the defacto-complainant and his brother with knives. c. It is further stated that Accused No.2 shouted threats invoking the political backing of a former MLA and warned the complainant not to report the incident to anyone. Based on the statement of the 4 defacto-complainant, the police registered a case against Accused No.6, alleging conspiracy and involvement in the murder of two persons. Accused No.6 is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly from Macherla Constituency, representing the YSRCP, and also the District President of the said party. d. It is stated that Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9 are leaders of the ruling party who committed the murder of Deceased Nos.1 and 2, but that the respondent herein was arrayed as Accused No.6 owing to political vendetta. It is also the case of the respondent/Accused No.6 that a series of cases have been registered against him with an oblique motive after the Telugu Desam Party assumed power. e. It is specifically stated that, to implicate Accused No.6 in this case, the investigating agency relied upon a call data record and a telephonic conversation with Accused No.8, based on the confessions of Accused Nos.1 to 5, for a duration of one minute two seconds. f. It is further stated that, for a fair investigation and trial and to ascertain the truth, the call log records and tower locations of the police officials and the de facto complainant during the period from 24.05.2025 to 26.05.2025 are necessary to ensure transparency in the investigation. The petitioner/Accused No.6 sought a direction 5 from the Court to the Service Providers named therein to furnish the said information and produce it before the Court concerned. 3. The State vehemently opposed the petition by filing a counter. The contents of the counter, in brief, are as follows: a. It is a case of brutal murder that took place on 24.05.2025 at about 4.45 p.m., which was reported the same day at 8.00 p.m. It is alleged that Accused Nos.6 and 7, who are brothers, assured Accused No.1 of their support in carrying out the pre-planned double murder of the deceased. In execution of the plan of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9, in conspiracy with Accused Nos.6 and 8, all the accused committed the murder of the two deceased persons. b. The specific objection raised by the complainant is that the request of the petitioner/Accused No.6 to call for the call data and tower location of the investigating team and the de facto complainant amounts to an unwarranted disregard of their right to privacy, without any showing of necessity or desirability, which are the primary requirements under Section 94 of BNSS. It is a premature stage to seek discovery of evidence, even before the final report is filed, since the case is still under investigation. An accused cannot invoke Section 94 of BNSS to demonstrate his innocence during the course of investigation. The request of Accused No.6 to track the movements of police officials and the de facto complainant is a 6 tactical attempt to intimidate witnesses and tamper with the investigation, and may compromise the safety and operational security of the investigating agency. The claim of the respondent/Accused No.6 that he was arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of a one-minute-two-second conversation is a misrepresentation, since several witnesses have given detailed statements regarding his active involvement in the conspiracy. Accused No.6 has not demonstrated any prima facie material to show mala fides on the part of the investigating officers or the de facto-complainant. c. It is further stated that mere allegations of a fishing or roving enquiry cannot be a ground to invade the privacy of individuals, particularly public servants discharging their duties. The request would have a chilling effect on the independent functioning of the police force and is contrary to public interest in light of Sections 130 and 131 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 20233. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ Accused No.6, finding a prima facie case of his involvement. Accused No.6 has failed to satisfy the test of necessity and desirability in seeking the private call records of officers ranging from the Superintendent of Police to the cadre of Constable as being 3 for short ‘BSA’ 7 relevant to prove his innocence in a case of conspiracy. Accused No.6 has no absolute right to seek such documents by way of a fishing or roving enquiry. d. The State also relied on the following pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttuswamy v. Union of India4, State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi5, State of Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh @ Baba6 and Nithya Dharmanandha v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy7. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge allowed the application vide the impugned order, holding that unless the data is preserved it may be lost forever. Noting that although it was a premature stage to entertain such an application, the Court directed the Service Providers/Telecom Operator to preserve the call data logs and tower location particulars, under sealed cover, for the period from 24.05.2024 to 26.05.2025, excluding other particulars by redacting them, in order to protect the privacy of the police officials and the de facto complainant, so that the data may be produced when required for the purpose of trial, to enable Accused No.6 to place his defence. 4 (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161 5 (2005) 1 SCC 568 6 2024 SCC Online SC 5537 7 (2018) 2 SCC 93 8 Grounds seeking Quashment 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has preferred the present petition seeking to quash it, on the following grounds: a. It is a case of a preplanned conspiracy resulting in the death of two persons, and the impugned order, permitting Accused No.6 to invoke Section 94 of BNSS without examining the necessity and desirability of the request during the course of investigation, amounts to a patent illegality. b. The impugned order does not disclose any satisfaction as to how the call details of the police officers are necessary for adjudication of the case. The petition itself is vague and lacks any specific foundation, amounting to a fishing and roving enquiry, since it does not specify any relevance to the defence. Permitting such a request amounts to conducting a mini-trial during the course of investigation itself. c. The direction to preserve the call data records directly infringes the right to privacy, endangers the safety and security of police personnel and confidential informants, and is detrimental to the interest of the investigating agency, causing grave prejudice to the administration of criminal justice. 9 d. The direction extends even to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, thereby aggravating the risk, and reflects a clear non-application of mind. e. An accused cannot demand disclosure of the communications of the investigating agency, as this amounts to unwarranted interference with the investigation and undermines its integrity. f. The learned Magistrate failed to consider and apply the binding precedents placed on record. The impugned order does not disclose any reasons justifying a direction to preserve the sensitive data of police personnel. 6. Heard Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State, and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel for the respondent/ Accused No.6. 7. Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that Accused No.6 cannot seek the indulgence of the Court by invoking Section 94 of BNSS during the course of investigation, since it is a premature stage at which to prove his innocence, and that such an application can be maintained only at the stage of defence. In support, he relied on a three- Judge Bench judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi (referred supra). 10 8. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Court must examine the necessity and desirability of the request keeping in mind the stage of the case, and that invoking Section 94 of BNSS at the investigation stage is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated the ratio in Debendra Nath Padhi in Nitya Dharmananda (referred supra), observing that an accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that a direction to preserve the call data records of investigating officials would violate their personal and professional privacy, may hinder ongoing investigations in other cases, and may expose the identities of secret informants and other sensitive operational details, thereby endangering the personal safety of police officials and informants. In support, he relied on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sidharth @ Sombir v. State of NCT of Delhi8, which, relying on Krishan Pahwa v. State of NCT of Delhi9, rejected a similar request on the ground that it would prejudice the safety and security of police officials and secret informants. He also relied on the Delhi High Court‟s judgments in Attar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), rejecting a request for supply of call details from an investigating officer‟s mobile phone, and State v. Haripal10. He further relied on the 8 Crl.M.C.No.402 of 2024 decide don 18.01.2024 9 2022 SCC Online Del 1758 10 2023 SCC Online 5045; Crl.M.C.No.1239/2018 decided on 16.08.2023 11 Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s reiteration of this view in Swarn Singh @ Baba (referred supra), following Debendra Nath Padhi. (referred supra). 10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ Accused No.6, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, assisted by Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, submitted that the CDRs of the investigating officials are required to prove the alleged conspiracy between the investigating agency and the de facto complainant. The application was filed during the investigation because the evidence is time-bound and may expire before the matter reaches the stage of defence. He further submitted that the direction to the Service Providers was not a blanket direction, the Court specifically excluded other particulars by redacting them, thereby safeguarding the privacy of the police officials and the de facto complainant. 11. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the impugned order can be scrutinised only in the exercise of revisional power under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS; hence, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashment is not maintainable. He relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Anjula Dwivedi v. State of Karnataka, 11 holding that the inherent power cannot be exercised where a remedy is available under Section 397 Cr.P.C. He further relied on the Delhi High Court‟s 11 Crl.P.No.4478 of 2015 decided on 31.03.2016; 2016 (3) AKR 356; AIR 2016 (Karnataka) 358 12 judgment in Mangal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 12 which, following the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s decision in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, 13 directed preservation of the CDRs and location data of the investigating team while taking necessary precautions to safeguard the safety and privacy of the members of the riding team and police informants. He also relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,14 wherein the learned Single Judge allowed an accused‟s application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., observing that preservation of call detail and tower location records was necessary, failing which the data would be lost forever. 12. The learned Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar (referred to supra), wherein the Apex Court observed that the petitioner therein had sought only preservation, and not production, of the CDR and location details, and that if such data were not preserved, it was likely to be lost and unavailable in support of his defence. The Court accordingly allowed the petition, holding that the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the application as premature. He relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chhinder Pal Singh v. State of Haryana,15 where the accused disputed the manner of his arrest and sought the tower location of the police party at the relevant 12 2025 SCC ONLINE DEL 6498 13 2014 (SCC) Online SC 1833 14 Crl.M.P.No.4342 of 2024 15 Crl.R.P.No.1294 of 2024 decided on 09.08.2024 13 time. It was observed that, under directions issued by the Central Government, electronic records are preserved by telecom companies only for a limited period, and that timely preservation of such records was therefore necessary, as they may be deleted after a specified period. He also relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Satnam @ Sattu v. State of Haryana, 16 directing preservation of the call details of police officials‟ mobile numbers along with tower location for a particular period, so that the accused could rely on them in his defence. Points for Determination 13. Having heard both sides, the following points arise for determination in this petition: i). Whether this Court can exercise its power under Section 528 of BNSS, despite the impugned order being amenable to challenge in revision? ii). Whether an accused is entitled to invoke the relief under Sections 94 and 95 of BNSS in a criminal case at the stage of investigation? iii). Whether the impugned order, directing the Service Providers to preserve the call data records of officials ranging from the Superintendent of Police to the cadre of Constable, and of the de 16 Crl.R.P.No.1264 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2024; 2024 PHHC 2991 14 facto complainant, infringes their right to privacy vis-à-vis security, and may cause prejudice to the investigation? Determination By This Court 14. Before examining the points framed above, it is relevant to note the undisputed material on record. Accused No.6 is facing allegations of conspiracy in a double murder case. While the case is at the stage of investigation, an application was filed seeking the call data records and tower locations of officials ranging from the Superintendent of Police to the cadre of Constable from the respective service providers, for the period 24.05.2025 to 26.05.2025. 15. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is now Section 528 BNSS clearly envisages that the inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected, and that the Court may make such orders as may be necessary: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code/Sanhita; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that a Court while exercising this jurisdiction does not function as a court of appeal or a court of revision and the exercise of power has to be to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In sum, this inherent jurisdiction must be invoked only for compelling reasons, such as abuse of the process of law or glaring injustice offending sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. The specific circumstances warranting invocation of these powers have been 15 emphasised in a catena of decisions; to cite a few, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal17 at paragraphs 102 and 103 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra18 at paragraph 57. 16. POINT NO.I It is important to understand the intention of the legislature in enacting a particular statute, so that it may be correctly applied to the facts of a given case. Courts must, in their wisdom, interpret a statute even where an alternative construction is available in a manner harmonious with, and consistent with, the real object and purpose of the statute. 16. Coming to the facts of the case, the State has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, directing the Service Providers to preserve the CDRs of police officials and the de facto complainant and to produce them as and when required. It is relevant, at the outset, to examine whether the impugned order is an interlocutory, intermediate, or final order, in order to determine whether the alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which is now Section 438 of BNSS can be invoked. 17. There is no merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that, since a revision would lie against an order under Section 94 of BNSS, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is not 17 1992 Supp(l) SCC 335 18 (2020) 10 see 118 16 maintainable. This is because a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in M. Koteswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,19 relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam,20 categorically held that an order summoning a document under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is a pure and simple interlocutory order, against which no revision lies, in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 18. It may be noted that Section 94 of BNSS corresponds to Section 91 Cr.P.C., and the same analogy applies to Section 94 of BNSS as well. In that light, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. 19. POINT NOs.II & III: The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in entertaining the application filed by the accused under Section 94 of BNSS during the course of investigation, since it is a premature stage, and that such an application cannot be moved by an accused before the framing of charge. He further submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application, and that the impugned order is contrary to settled principles. In support, he relied on a judgment of a larger Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Debendra 19 Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2018, order dated 14.11.2019 20 2009 (5) SCC 153 17 Nath Padhi (referred to supra), which was followed in Swarn Singh @ Baba (referred to supra). 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that there could be no dispute regarding the legal position relied upon by the prosecution, but that call data and tower location records are maintained by telecom companies for only two years, and would automatically be deleted unless preserved. Learned counsel further submitted that, since the case is still at the stage of investigation with no likelihood of trial commencing soon, there is an imminent risk that the data would be lost by the time the matter reaches the stage of defence. In support, he relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar (referred to supra). 21. Admittedly, the respondent/accused filed the application under Section 94 of BNSS during the course of investigation. For ready reference, Sections 94 and 95 of BNSS are extracted below: Section 94. Summons to produce document or other thing. (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers the production of any document, electronic communication (including communication devices likely to contain digital evidence), or other thing to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under this Sanhita by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer may, by written order (in physical or electronic form), require the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at 18 the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) A person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed — (a) to affect Sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891); or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, or other document, parcel, or thing in the custody of the postal authority. 22. The language employed in Sections 94 of BNSS shows that the fundamental requirement for moving an application, whether by the prosecution or by the accused, is that the document be shown to be necessary or desirable. This is because an application under Section 94 or 95 of BNSS may be moved for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry, trial, or other proceeding under BNSS, before a Court or officer, who may then issue summons to the person believed to be in possession of the document or thing. Therefore, the words „necessity or desirability‟ are crucial to a proper understanding of the said provision. It must also be borne in mind that, under this section, a police officer may move the Court for the summoning and production of a document at any stage of the criminal proceedings, and the Court may likewise exercise jurisdiction under Section 94 of BNSS at any stage of the proceedings. As regards the accused, his entitlement to make such a request under Section 94 of BNSS would 19 ordinarily arise only at the stage of defence. To determine necessity and desirability, the stage of the proceedings must be examined. This is because, for the purpose of framing a charge, the Court is required to look only at the record produced before it under Section 193 of BNSS. The accused cannot place any material before the Court to prove his innocence at the stage of the hearing on charge, except where material collected during investigation has been deliberately withheld from production. 23. In that view, since there is no necessity for the accused to place any such document at the stage of framing of charges indeed, he is not permitted to place material to prove his innocence at that stage, that is not the stage at which to invoke Section 94 or 95 of BNSS. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab21, held that trial commences after the framing of charges, when the accused, upon the charges being read over, pleads not guilty. There is no dispute that the accused is entitled to invoke Section 94 or 95 of BNSS at the stage of defence. 24. The next question that arises is what constitutes the „stage of defence‟. The defence may commence even at the stage of cross- examination of the first prosecution witness. However, without a foundation laid through a relevant witness, putting such a question directly to the investigating officer would serve no purpose. The stage of defence does not 21 (2014) 3 SCC 92 20 mean that the accused can invoke Section 94 of BNSS only after the prosecution evidence and the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are complete, as that would lead to a cumbersome procedure requiring witnesses to be recalled merely to confront them with such documents. In general, therefore, the accused cannot invoke Section 94 of BNSS where there is no necessity to put forth his defence prior to the commencement of trial. 25. At this stage, for the purpose of arriving at the correct conclusion, the contents of the petition and the relief prayed for therein are important. A perusal of the petition filed by the accused, placed before this Court, shows that it is a case of double murder alleged to have occurred on 24.05.2025 at about 4.45 p.m. The respondent/Accused No.6 was not present at the scene of the offence at the relevant time. He is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, and the allegation against him is one of conspiracy. It is further stated that the investigating agency relied upon a call data record between Accused No.6 and Accused No.8, based on the confessions of Accused Nos.1 to 5, for a duration of one minute two seconds. It is the specific contention of the respondent/Accused No.6 that he was falsely implicated in this case owing to political rivalry. Accordingly, he prayed the Court to direct production of the call data records and tower location particulars of the police officials, ranging from the Superintendent of Police to the Police Constable, and of the defacto-complainant, for the period 21 24.05.2025 to 26.05.2025. In short, the respondent/Accused No.6 sought a direction to the Service Providers to (I) provide the call data records and tower location of the said persons, and (II) produce the same before the Magistrate Court. 26. In Debendra Nath Padhi (referred to supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No.25, held as follows: 25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct 22 production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof. (emphasis supplied) 27. In Swarn Singh @ Baba (referred to supra), the accused filed an application before the Trial Court seeking summoning of the call details of the Seizure Officer and certain other police officials for the date of seizure, i.e., 15.02.2019. The Trial Court rejected the application, whereas in revision allowed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, on the State‟s appeal, applied the ratio in Debendra Nath Padhi (referred to supra) and held that the accused‟s entitlement to seek an order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would ordinarily not arise until the stage of defence. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court accordingly set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the criminal appeal, while expressly clarifying that the respondent-accused would be at liberty to file the application at the appropriate stage. 28. In Suresh Kumar (referred to supra), the appellant was prosecuted for offences under the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, he was apprehended in front of Yashika Palace Hotel between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. on 24.02.2013. The police filed a charge sheet against him. Before commencement of trial, he applied before the Special Judge to summon the call details of the accused (the appellant himself) and of the police 23 officers who allegedly arrested him, contending that the recorded place of arrest was factually incorrect and that the call data would show the officers to have been at different locations at the relevant time. The Special Court dismissed the application, and the High Court dismissed his revision. On appeal, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in para 8 inter alia, noted the prosecution‟s objection that summoning such call details was likely to prejudice the Narcotics Control Bureau, since the details would disclose not only the officers‟ locations but also other information, hamper investigation, and risk exposing sources of information. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that electronic records are admissible in evidence under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that the accused has every right to summon whatever is relevant and admissible in his defence including electronic record relevant to finding out the location of the officers effecting the arrest. Noting the appellant‟s counsel‟s submission that no other information contained in the call details would be of use to him, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to summon from the companies concerned the call details of the specified SIM numbers for a defined window of time on 24.02.2013, with the further direction that “calling numbers and the numbers called from the said mobile phone shall be blacked out by the companies while furnishing such details,” so as to protect the prosecution against exposure of unrelated sources of information. Therefore, in Suresh Kumar (referred to supra), 24 although the application was filed before commencement of trial, the Court ordered production of call data only to identify the tower location of the arresting officials, with the remaining information blocked out. 29. In Mangal Singh (referred to supra), the petitioner was arrested, based on a co-accused‟s confession, along with a truck from which 25.180 kgs of opium was recovered. He filed an application under Section 94 of BNSS at the pre-charge stage, before the Trial Court seeking preservation of the CDRs and location charts of himself and the raiding team, which was dismissed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi held that the reliance placed by the prosecution on Debendra Nath Padhi (referred to supra) was misplaced, since that decision dealt with an accused‟s right to summon documents in his defence before the commencement of trial, whereas the petitioner before the Court had sought no production of any document, and had confined his prayer to preservation of the CDRs and location charts, so that the data would not be lost in view of the notification of the Department of Telecommunications. Relying on Suresh Kumar (referred to supra), the learned Single Judge held that there is no embargo to the production of CDRs/location charts before the court at an appropriate stage while taking necessary precautions regarding the safety and privacy of the members of the raiding team and the police informers and that if the data sought were not preserved, there is likelihood that the same may get lost and may not 25 be available to the petitioner in support of his defence. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that dismissing the petition as premature was erroneous and has thus allowed the application with a direction that the CDRs and location charts of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer, the Duty Officer, and the other members of the raiding team be preserved by the respective service providers. 30. As is evident from the judgments referred to above, although the applications in Suresh Kumar and Mangal Singh (referred to supra), were both filed before the commencement of trial, the relief granted in each instance was confined strictly to preservation, or to the limited extent of identifying the location of the officers concerned, with all other particulars of the calls received or made excluded. Swarn Singh @ Baba, (referred to supra) by contrast, was a case where the accused sought outright summoning of call details at the pre-charge stage, unaccompanied by any prayer confined to mere preservation, and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court accordingly set aside the order granting that relief while, leaving it open to the accused to explore his remedies at the appropriate stage. In light of the judgments referred to above, this Court holds that an accused cannot invoke Section 94 or 95 of BNSS, before the commencement of trial, to seek production of a document or thing to establish his defence. A narrow and exceptional class of applications, however confined strictly to preservation of electronic data that is inherently time-bound and liable to 26 be lost through effluxion of time stands on a different footing. Even in such cases, accused must demonstrate the necessity and desirability of preservation and a nexus between the data sought and his defence. It may also be noted that the satisfaction of the Court permitting production or preservation of any document must appear expressly from the order, which must itself disclose reasons and non-compliance with this requirement renders the order bad. It is equally settled that an accused cannot, under the guise of Section 94 BNSS, seek a roving and fishing inquiry and it is only where the accused discloses the nature of the document and its relevance that the Court is required to decide whether production or preservation is necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case 31. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent/Accused No.6 sought a direction to the Service Providers to provide the call data records and tower location, and to produce them before the Magistrate Court. A fair reading of the impugned order shows that the petition was treated as one for preservation of call data and tower location to enable the accused to raise a defence at trial. It is important to extract a few paragraphs from the impugned order. Paras 18 and 19 reads as below; “18. Further, it is an undisputed fact that as per the contention of the respondent side that, this matter is already under pursuance of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India ,as the petitioner side/A6 was directed to Surrender 27 before this Court in pursuance of his right of Anticipatory Bail application, as such, the petitioner side/A6 is barred from seeking relief u/sec.94BNSS is only trying to stake the Investigating Agency with unnecessary interference towards obstruction of high dignitaries privacy concerns is of rampant welcoming untoward legal constraints for further investigation process, per contra, the petitioner side contends that the right of the accused guaranteed under Article 14, 20 and 21 of Indian Constitution read with u/sec.94ofBNSS prevails over the privacy of the investigating team of officials and de facto complainant unless it required so on necessity and desirability that shown by the petitioner /A6 in doing so, in addition to that, in spite of the direction passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, the accused is under detention as remand prisoner and no such de jure hurdle to the extent of the relief sought as defence plea in terms of Principles of fair Trial. On the basis of entire pleadings, both parties to the proceedings coupled with their precedent caselaws, it is clearly apparent on record that, as per guidelines laid down in Putta Swamy Case 2017, the term “necessity” in Debendranadh Padhi case,(2005) the term “premature”, in State of Rajasthan Vs Swam Singh@Baba case “accused cannot be invoked his, right under sec.94BNSS at investigation stage”, in Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelam Reddy case, The term “derail” investigation to intimidate or hamper, against rule of Sec. 130,131 of BSA, in V.K. Sasi Kala Vs Sarala Gupta (2012) case “accused can invoke his right under section 94 Cr.P.C., at trial stage”, vis-a-vis reliance of petitioner side in Mangal Singh case (2025) pertaining to 10-10- 2025 coupled with Suresh Kumar (2014) and Neeraj Kumar case (2025), engulfs the plea of respondent side credibly as reasonable unprecedentedly to ensure the principles of fair trial to the extent of grounds of Plea of petitioner as sufficiently satisfied with vice-versa to the extent of call log and tower location particulars, upon the dial of the record beyond the call record particulars and production of documents by service providers before this court as sought for. Thenceforth, in that aspect, this Court is pleased to observe that the petitioner /A6 plea tilts as substantial and reasonable and tenable over the 28 respondent side plea to that extent call data logs and tower location particulars itself as penultimate. 19. However, in the outline of judicial scrutiny and legal oversight, admittedly as there is no dispute with regard to the contention of the respondent side in “stricto-sensu”, to their extent of plea of “production of records”, under section 94 of BNSS that pertains to the trial stage rather than “investigation stage”, that too concerned to “police”, rather than “accused”, letting into mini trial, is of “premature plea”, nonetheless, it does not tantamount to that of the petitioner .side plea adjures considerably to the extent of the merits of the case, wherein, substantiates as contingent forego plea, thence it insights eloquently that there is no bar to the extent of the appropriate plea of the petitioner as adhoc for “preservation of call data logs and tower location particulars of the inferred parties”, admittedly as “premature and not “unconstitutional”, in- lieu of submissions on behalf of the petitioner side on par with the respondent side as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner side, is of inductive plea that redressed straight away before this court for want of reasons that prevented from doing so, rather than the Hon‟ble Trial court or Hon‟ble Constitutional courts, as the subject matter of disputed fact pertinent to both “statutory” and “fundamental right”, towards “mixed question of fact and law”, 'as there is no scope for viability of requisite particulars of electronic record due -to its short period of retention probably obliterates with, as ephemeral and may lost forever, if not secured immediately, that itself enables them in doing so, as invincible upon the part of the petitioner side, to that extent without any further reference in any manner whatsoever, as rightly contended by the petitioner side.” 32. Thereafter, in the result portion, the impugned order reads as follows; “In the result, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, hereby, directed the officer to issue official memorandum against the Nodal Officer of the Telecom Service Provider/Telecom Operator, company wise each, of the concerned telephone 29 numbers respectively in terms of Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, under Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 2014, and Sections 94 and 95 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000, and Article 21 of Indian Constitution, with direction to preserve the call data logs and tower location particulars under sealed cover and safeguard the data duly, as the case may be, with call log “Tower location duration “1;02 mins” of phone call conversation and particulars” for the period i.e. 24-05-2025 to 26-05-2025 of the Investigating team namely: (i) Shri K. Srinivas Rao, I.P.S., the then Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District – 9440796200; (ii) Shri B. Jagadish, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gurazala – 9440796210 / 8885806369; (iii) Shri S.K. Nafeez Basha, Inspector of Police, Macherla Rural Police Station – 9440796229 / 7013217127; (iv) Shri Samandar Valli, Sub-Inspector of Police, Veldurthy Police Station – 9440796296 / 8143444457; (v) Shri G. Saida, Police Constable 6391 – 9966126232; (vi) Shri Thota Anjaneyulu, De facto- complainant – 9177605129; excluding other particulars by censoring in blacked out masks towards privacy concern of the Police officials and De facto-Complainant with subscriber particulars of the following Telecom Operators, i.e. (i) Airtel Limited, represented by its Principal General Manager, 1-8-437, 438 and 435, Splendid Tower, Opposite Begum Pet Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana; (ii) BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), Andhra Pradesh, represented by its General Manager, Room No.407, 4th Floor, BSNL Bhavan, Chuttigunta, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 520004; (iii) M/s Jio/Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, represented by its General Manager, 3rd Lane, Vidhya Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh; so as to cause production of the same as and when it required so, for the purpose of “Trial”, or as the case may be, so as to enable the defence plea of “alibi” of the petitioner/A6, with appropriate leave of the Hon‟ble Trial Court or the Hon‟ble Constitutional Courts, further directs the concerned service provider on receipt of the notice of this order shall acknowledge with compliance report forthwith with such preserved data in terms of sealed cover to this Court, the concerned Investigating Officer or Station House Officer shall ensue the same intact with on doing so, to the notice 30 of this Court that the requisite data is neither deleted nor such other involvement of investigation team til formal examination during the course of trial, most expeditiously as exigent, lest charts would follows.” 33. It appears that the impugned order was passed without clarity as to what data was required and what directions were issued to the Service Providers. There is no reference in the petition to any plea of alibi, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the respondent/Accused No.6 was present at the scene of the offence at the relevant time, the allegation against him is one of conspiracy alone. It is the specific case set out in the petition that Accused No.6 was falsely implicated on the basis of an alleged one-minute- two-second conversation with Accused No.8, the date and time of which were not even mentioned. Most significantly, the petitioner never sought his own call data to prove an alibi. The relief prayed for in the petition is confined to the call data records and tower location of the de facto- complainant and of the investigating team, from the Superintendent of Police to the Police Constable, in relation to this specific case, for the three- day period from 24.05.2025 to 26.05.2026. The learned Magistrate, in paragraph No.2 of the order, records at the outset that the petition was filed for preservation of the CDRs and tower locations to enable the accused to raise them as a defence at trial. However, the reasoning in paragraph No.2 departs from the operative portion of the order, which directs the Service Providers to preserve and produce the data as and when required, and to produce it before the Magistrate Court. This Court is unable to appreciate 31 how the police can be made responsible for safeguarding the genuineness of the data until its formal examination at trial. 34. In short, the impugned order, at several places, appears scattered and does not consistently maintain the distinction between preservation and production. The authorities relied upon are referred to in different forms at different places, while provisions such as Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 2014, Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Article 21 of the Constitution suddenly find place in the result portion, without the order explaining how their applicability arises or how those provisions authorise the directions which were issued. This Court is conscious that it must adopt a restrained and measured approach towards the Court whose order is under consideration. Such restraint however, cannot extend to overlooking glaring inconsistencies or portions of the order which are so vague or incoherent that the intended meaning itself becomes difficult to identify. Judicial office carries a solemn responsibility and a high degree of public trust, which calls for the greatest discipline, care and application of mind in the discharge of judicial functions. Every judicial order must reflect clarity of thought, careful consideration of material placed before the Court and a reasoned application of the relevant law and precedents. These observations are made solely in recognition of the responsibility attached to the judicial office itself. 32 35. On a conspectus of the judgments referred to above, and having regard also to the findings, this Court holds as follows: a. An accused cannot invoke Section 94 or 95 of BNSS, prior to the commencement of trial, to summon production of a document in aid of his defence. This bar is confined to production, it does not extend to exceptional class of applications seeking mere preservation of time-bound electronic data that would otherwise stand irretrievably lost before the stage of defence is reached, as recognised in Suresh Kumar (referred supra). b. Even within that narrow exception, preservation is not to be ordered as a matter of course. The accused must show justifiable grounds satisfying the test of necessity or desirability, and must demonstrate a specific nexus between the data sought and the defence he proposes to set up and it is the Magistrate seized of the application, exercising jurisdiction under Section 94 of BNSS, who must apply that test rather than assume it satisfied merely because the data in question is time-bound. c. A fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the data sought here is undisputedly time-bound material. That consideration explains why an application confined to preservation may properly be entertained at the investigation stage, it does not, however, dispense with the requirement at point (b) that 33 even a preservation order be founded on a stated nexus between the data and the defence. 36. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 13.03.2026, passed in Crl.Mp.No.1460 of 2025, in Cr.No.40 of 2025 of Veldurthi Police Station, on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Macherla, 37. It is, however, open to Accused No.6 to file a fresh application before the learned Magistrate confined to preservation of the specified data, supported by a stated nexus to his defence and the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate decision on any such application strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order. As a sequel thereto, pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.08.2026 LR. Copy to be marked B/o. KRS 34 119 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2247 of 2026 ( O R D E R ) DATE: 10.08.2026 KRS 35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI ***** THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2247 of 2026 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Macherla Rural Circle, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P. at Amaravati. ... Petitioner AND Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o.Pinnelli Venkateswara Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ: Ex-MLA, R/o.Macherla, Palnadu District. ... Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.08.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. 3. Whether Their ladyship/Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment? ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 36 * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2247 OF 2026 % 10.08.2026 #The State Of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Macherla Rural Circle, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P. at Amaravati. .. Petitioner Vs. $ Pinnelli Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o.Pinnelli Venkateswara Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ: Ex-MLA, R/o.Macherla, Palnadu District. .. Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent: Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel for the respondent/accused No.6. <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2017) 10 SCC 1 ; AIR 207 SC 4161 2. (2005) 1 SCC 568 3. 2024 SCC Online SC 5537 4. (2018) 2 SCC 93 5. Crl.M.C.No.402 of 2024 decided on 18.01.2024 6. 2022 SCC Online Del 1758 7. 2023 SCC Online 5045; Crl.M.C.No.1239/2018 decided on 16.08.2023 8. Crl.P.No.4478 of 2015 decided on 31.03.2026; 2016 (3) AKR 356; AIR 2016 (Karnataka) 358 9. 2025 SCC ONLINE DEL 6498 10. 2014 (SCC) Online SC 1833 11. Crl.M.P.No.4342 of 2024 12. Crl.R.P.No.1294 of 2024 decided on 09.08.2024 13. Crl.R.P.No.1264 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2024; 2024 PHHC 2991 37 14. 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 15. (2020) 10 see 118 16. Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2018, order dated 14.11.2019 17. 2009(5) SCC 153 18. (2014) 3 SCC 92 This Court made the following: