Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Allowing Accused's Plea To Preserve Call Detail Records, Location Data Of CBI Officers

For context, Section 397(2) CrPC imposes a bar on the revisional jurisdiction of High Court with respect to interlocutory orders.

CBI filed a case against accused/respondent under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC. During the trial, the respondent sought preservation of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses, contending that such records could be crucial for his defence.

The Trial Court allowed the respondent's application, noting that it was necessary to safeguard accused's right to a fair trial and ensuring that the relevant records remain available if required at the appropriate stage of proceedings.

The CBI contended that the respondent's application was merely an attempt towards fishing and roving inquiry, lacking any specific allegation. It argued that the Trial Court's order prejudiced the prosecution's case and that preserving the CDRs of their mobile phones could compromise CBI officals' personal safety, jeopardize ongoing investigations, and risk exposing confidential sources.

Referring to various case laws, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh noted that an interlocutory order does not finally determine the rights of the parties and merely address a procedural or interim aspect necessary for the progression of the case. The Court noted that interlocutory order does not bring the proceedings to a conclusion, rather it operates as a temporary or interim measure that facilitates the trial process

In the present case, the Court was of the view that Trial Court's order did not bring the criminal proceedings to an end or determine any significant right of the parties. It noted that the respondent's application was merely for preserving a category of evidence without disrupting the investigation.

“The order only safeguards potential evidence from automatic deletion, and the respondent would still have to seek permission from the Court at the appropriate stage to access these records. There is no element of finality in the order, as it neither adjudicates upon the guilt or innocence of the accused nor conclusively affects the prosecution's ability to conduct the trial.”

Noting that the order was procedural and interlocutory in nature, the Court held that the petition was barred under Section 397(2) CrPC.

The Court further distinguished the present case from the judgment passed in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) relied upon by CBI. In this case, the Supreme Court held that accused does not have an absolute right to summon and produce documents at the stage of framing of charges.

The High Court noted that in the present case, the respondent was not seeking the production of documents for his defence at the charge stage but merely sought the preservation of CDRs and location data to ensure the relevant records are not lost due to automatic deletion by telecom service providers. It remarked “This distinction is crucial, as the above quoted precedent dealt with whether an accused can summon documents to establish his defence at the charge stage, whereas the present case concerns the preservation of potential evidence and not its immediate production or use by the accused.”

While holding that the petition was barred by Section 397(2) CrPC, the Court nonetheless proceeded to determine whether the impugned order was erroneous as the petition was filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 CrPC, where the Court can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

The Court noted that CBI did not raise any specific grounds for raised justifying interference under Section 482 CrPC. It stated “The present petition does not disclose any exceptional circumstances where the impugned order leads to an abuse of process or results in a miscarriage of justice.”

The Court noted that Trial Court's order merely directed the preservation of CDRs and location charts, without granting immediate access to the respondent.

Noting that trial court exercised its discretion under Section 91 CrPC, it said “Since the CDRs and location data have only been ordered to be preserved and not disclosed, there is no basis for the petitioner's apprehension that this would provide an undue advantage to the defence. The direction does not interfere with the prosecution's case but simply ensures that potentially relevant evidence is not lost due to automatic deletion. Therefore, the petitioner's contention regarding prejudice to the prosecution or an unfair advantage to the respondent is unfounded.”

The Court thus upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

Case title: CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Counsels for Petitioner/CBI: Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP with Mr. Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj, Mr. Sagar and Ms. Madhulika Raj Sharma

Counsels for Respondent: Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Abhiswhek Mahal and Ms. Tripti Roy