Savitri Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11008) on 25 February, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Savitri Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11008) on 25 February, 2026

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:11008]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 923/2023

Savitri Devi D/o Lt. Bacchana Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
W.no. 52, Sueashiya, Hanumangarh Junction, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport
Section, Through Director (Transport), Transport Bhawan,
1 Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001.
3. Assistant General Manager (Administration), Suratgarh
Bikaner Toll Road Company Pvt. Ltd., Hindore Toll Plaza,
Rajiasar, Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable-

25/02/2026

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is mother

of the accused, seeks a series of directions under the

provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

address various grievances regarding the criminal

proceedings initiated against her son under the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The

petition raises serious concerns about the false implication of

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (2 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

the petitioner's son and the failure of the respondents to

preserve crucial evidence, including the CCTV footage from

Hindore Toll Plaza, which the petitioner claims is pivotal to

his defense.

2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs through the instant

writ petition:

a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction

respondents may kindly be directed to procure CCTV

footage of the Hindor Toll Plaza dated 20.12.2022 from

8:45 am to 1:00 p.m.

b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the

present petitioner's son may kindly be discharged from

the NDPS charges leveled against him.

c. By an appropriate writ, order or direction criminal

proceedings initiated against the present petitioner

may kindly be drooped.

d. By an appropriate writ, order or direction present

petitioner's son may be released from the judicial

custody.

e. By an appropriate writ, order or direction FIR no.

323/2022 Police Station Rajiyasar, District Ganganagar

(Rajasthan) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Brief Facts

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,

who is the mother of the accused, invoking the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (3 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

of India. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of the

criminal proceedings initiated vide FIR No. 323/2022

registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar

for offences under Sections 8, 15, 21 and 25 of the NDPS

Act. The petitioner contends that her son has been falsely

implicated and that the investigation conducted by the police

authorities suffers from serious procedural infirmities. It is

the specific case of the petitioner that the alleged

interception of the vehicles and the subsequent search and

recovery are stated to have taken place at Hindore Toll Plaza

on the Bikaner-Suratgarh National Highway on 20.12.2022

between approximately 11:10 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., a place

which is admittedly equipped with CCTV surveillance

systems.

4. According to the prosecution, the complainant-police officer

while patrolling noticed a Swift car and a Bolero Pick-up

moving at high speed, chased them on suspicion, and

ultimately stopped the vehicles at Hindore Toll Plaza where

search was conducted in the presence of alleged independent

witnesses. It is alleged that from the Swift car bearing

registration No. RJ19CK7868 four plastic bags containing

poppy husk weighing 76 Kg in total were recovered.

However, the petitioner asserts that no recovery was made

from the Bolero vehicle and that the alleged recovery from

the Swift car is fabricated. It is further alleged that the

incident began with a minor altercation between the police

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (4 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

personnel and the accused after the side mirror of the Swift

car was damaged during the chase, which subsequently led

to false implication of the petitioner's son. The petitioner

emphasizes that her son is 38 years old and has no criminal

antecedents.

5. The central grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to the

deliberate failure of the investigating agency to secure and

preserve the CCTV footage of Hindore Toll Plaza for the

relevant period. The petitioner had moved an application

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh on

04.01.2023 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of

CCTV footage for the period between 8:45 A.M. and 1:00

P.M. on 20.12.2022, which could have conclusively

demonstrated the sequence of events. The learned trial court

directed the prosecution to produce the said footage;

however, despite repeated opportunities and judicial

directions, the footage was not produced and ultimately the

Toll Plaza authorities reported that the data had been

deleted. The petitioner alleges that the prosecution

deliberately delayed the production of footage so that the

30-day retention period could lapse, thereby resulting in

destruction of the most crucial evidence. Hence, the present

writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone

through the materials available on record.

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (5 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

7. The Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as

the material placed on record. The issues raised in the

present writ petition transcend the ordinary realm of factual

disputes and enter into the domain of constitutional

guarantees relating to fairness in criminal investigation and

trial.

8. At the outset, it must be observed that offences under the

NDPS Act are amongst the most stringent offences

contemplated in criminal jurisprudence. The statute

prescribes severe mandatory punishments and incorporates

stringent procedural requirements. The minimum sentence

for certain offences may extend to ten years or more,

thereby significantly affecting the liberty of an accused

person. It is therefore well settled that the prosecution in

such cases carries a heavy and rigorous burden of proof and

must strictly comply with procedural safeguards prescribed

under law.

9. Amongst the various principles governing criminal evidence,

the Rule of Best Evidence occupies a foundational position.

This principle mandates that when the best available

evidence capable of proving a particular fact is accessible to

a party, that party is obligated to produce such evidence

before the Court. Inferior or secondary evidence cannot

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (6 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

substitute the primary and most reliable evidence when the

latter is within the reach of the party relying upon it.

10. The aforesaid principle finds statutory recognition in the

scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly in

Sections 61, 62 and 64 which require that the contents of a

document must ordinarily be proved by primary evidence,

that is, the document itself. The doctrine underlying these

provisions is commonly referred to as the Rule of Best

Evidence, which mandates that when the most direct and

reliable evidence of a fact is available, the same must be

produced before the Court. Secondary or inferior forms of

proof are permissible only in exceptional circumstances

contemplated under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The

object of this rule is to ensure the highest degree of

reliability in judicial fact-finding by insisting that the Court be

placed in possession of the most authentic material evidence

capable of proving the fact in issue.

11.The principle has been consistently recognised in

authoritative legal commentary as well. As explained by Sir

James Fitzjames Stephen in his treatise Digest of the Law of

Evidence, the rule is founded upon the logic that "the best

available evidence must be produced in order to prevent

fraud, mistake, or distortion of facts." Similarly, leading

Indian commentary such as Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on the Law

of Evidence explains that the rule is designed to exclude

weaker evidence when stronger and more reliable evidence

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (7 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

is available. The rationale behind the doctrine is that the

administration of justice must rely upon the most direct,

authentic and trustworthy form of proof, so that the Court

may reach its conclusions upon the clearest possible

evidentiary foundation.

12.In the modern context, this doctrine has naturally expanded

to include electronic records, which are recognised as

documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act

and are governed by the special provisions contained in

Sections 65A and 65B. Consequently, where a fact in issue is

capable of being proved through contemporaneous electronic

recording such as CCTV surveillance capturing the events in

real time, such evidence may constitute the best and most

direct evidence of the occurrence.

13.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v.

Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1346) has categorically held

that it is a cardinal principle of evidence that the best

available evidence must be placed before the Court in order

to establish a fact in issue.

14.In criminal trials this principle assumes even greater

importance because the presumption of innocence lies in

favour of the accused. The prosecution is required to

establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and not merely on a

balance of probabilities. Therefore, where crucial evidence

capable of establishing the truth of the prosecution narrative

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (8 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

exists but is withheld or allowed to disappear, the Court

cannot ignore such conduct.

15.In the present case, the prosecution narrative itself indicates

that the alleged interception, apprehension of the accused,

movement of vehicles, their entry into the toll plaza, the

search proceedings and subsequent events all occurred

within the premises of Hindore Toll Plaza, a place admittedly

covered by CCTV surveillance systems. The Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways guidelines, placed on record, require

toll plazas to maintain CCTV recordings for a stipulated

period. Thus, the electronic footage of the relevant period

constituted direct and objective evidence capable of

depicting the entire sequence of events.

16.Such electronic evidence would have had the capacity to

demonstrate:

• the manner in which the vehicles arrived at the toll plaza,

• the presence and movement of police personnel,

• the alleged apprehension of the accused,

• the circumstances under which the vehicles were taken to the

administrative office, and

• the conduct of search and seizure operations.

17.Thus, the CCTV footage constituted the most reliable and

unbiased evidence regarding the events which formed the

very substratum of the prosecution case.

18.In the contemporary era of digital technology, electronic

evidence such as CCTV recordings has assumed

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (9 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

extraordinary significance in the administration of criminal

justice. Unlike oral testimony, which is dependent upon

human perception, memory and narration, electronic

recordings capture events as they actually unfold in real

time. When such recordings are obtained in accordance with

the regular protocol of operation of surveillance systems and

are shown to be free from any possibility of tampering,

morphing, distortion, corruption or fabrication, they

constitute one of the most reliable forms of evidence

available to a court of law.

19.Electronic evidence which is produced in accordance with the

statutory requirements governing admissibility and which is

free from any reasonable suspicion of manipulation can, in

appropriate circumstances, represent the best form of

evidence available for determining the truth of disputed

events. This is because such evidence does not depend upon

human recollection or interpretation but rather reflects the

events as they actually occurred before the camera.

Consequently, when the authenticity of such electronic

material is established and the chain of custody is intact, it

often possesses a degree of objectivity and reliability which

oral or documentary evidence may not always achieve.

20.In many criminal cases, the testimony of witnesses is

inevitably influenced by the limitations of human perception

and memory. Witnesses may honestly differ in their narration

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (10 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

of events due to lapse of time, stress of the moment, or

subjective interpretation of circumstances. Documents, on

the other hand, merely record what a person has chosen to

write or narrate regarding a particular event. Electronic

evidence, particularly CCTV recordings, stands on a distinct

footing because it directly captures the occurrence itself. It

therefore provides the Court with an opportunity to view the

sequence of events in their natural form, thereby enabling a

more accurate appreciation of the factual matrix.

21.For this reason, where an occurrence takes place at a

location covered by surveillance cameras and the relevant

footage is available, such recording may constitute evidence

of a higher evidentiary value than oral narration of the same

events by witnesses. A witness may describe what he claims

to have seen, whereas a CCTV recording depicts what

actually transpired before the camera. Therefore, when the

electronic record is authentic, untampered and properly

preserved, it may serve as the most direct and reliable

depiction of the occurrence.

22.The principle underlying the Rule of Best Evidence therefore

assumes even greater relevance in cases involving electronic

surveillance. If an event has been captured by a functioning

CCTV system and such recording is capable of revealing the

truth of the matter in dispute, the investigating agency is

expected to secure and preserve that recording with utmost

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (11 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

diligence. Failure to do so not only deprives the Court of the

most reliable source of information but may also give rise to

legitimate doubts regarding the fairness of the investigation.

23.In the present case, the CCTV cameras installed at Hindore

Toll Plaza had the potential to capture the movement of the

vehicles involved, the presence and actions of the police

personnel, the alleged apprehension of the accused, and the

subsequent search proceedings. Such footage, if preserved

and produced, would have enabled the Court to visually

examine the sequence of events instead of merely relying

upon the narrative presented by witnesses. In other words,

the electronic recording could have served as the most direct

and objective evidence regarding the very foundation of the

prosecution case.

24.When such potentially decisive evidence is allowed to

disappear despite specific judicial directions for its

production, the Court cannot ignore the serious implications

that arise therefrom. The disappearance of the electronic

footage does not merely constitute a procedural lapse;

rather, it deprives the Court of the best possible evidence

capable of verifying the truth of the allegations. In a criminal

prosecution where the liberty of an individual is at stake,

such failure assumes profound significance.

25.Under such circumstances, the primary responsibility to

collect and produce such evidence rested upon the

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (12 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

investigating agency. The State is not an ordinary litigant

driven by private vendetta or adversarial motives; rather, it

represents the sovereign authority whose obligation is to

ensure that justice is done. Therefore, the investigating

officer and the public prosecutor are expected to present

before the Court all relevant material, whether favourable or

unfavourable, to enable the Court to discover the truth.

26.However, the record of the present case reveals a disturbing

sequence of events. The petitioner approached the learned

trial court within a short span of approximately fourteen days

of the alleged incident and specifically sought production of

the CCTV footage by filing an application under Section 91

Cr.P.C. The learned trial court, recognizing the relevance of

such evidence, allowed the application and issued directions

to produce the footage along with the recording device.

27.Despite such judicial direction, the prosecution repeatedly

sought adjournments and failed to produce the footage.

Ultimately, the Toll Plaza authorities informed the Court that

the data of the relevant date had been deleted. The timing

and manner in which such explanation was furnished,

particularly after repeated adjournments, creates a

legitimate doubt regarding the bona fides of the concerned

authorities.

28.It is also noteworthy that when the accused himself

expressed willingness to bear the cost of engaging technical

experts and requested that the hard disk be sent for forensic

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (13 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

recovery of the data, the prosecution resisted such attempt

on the ground of inconvenience and technical difficulty. This

conduct assumes significance because ordinarily the

prosecution would welcome any effort aimed at

strengthening the evidentiary foundation of the case.

29.The situation therefore presents a rather unusual spectacle

where the accused was eager to bring the best possible

evidence before the Court, while the prosecution appeared

reluctant to facilitate its production.

30.In the domain of evidence law, such conduct inevitably

attracts the operation of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872, ( section 119 BSA, 2023) particularly Illustration

(g) appended thereto. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence

Act reads as under:-

Section 114 of the Evidence Act:

The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely

to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural

events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation

to the facts of the particular case.

llustrations

The Court may presume --

(a) .........

(b) ........

(d) .......

(e) .......

(f) .......

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (14 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if

produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;

31.Section 114 empowers the Court to draw presumptions

based on the natural course of human conduct and common

experience. Illustration (g) specifically provides that the

Court may presume that evidence which could be produced

and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to

the person who withholds it.

32.The principle underlying this provision is based on ordinary

human behaviour. When a party deliberately withholds the

best available evidence within its control, the Court is

justified in drawing an inference that the evidence would not

have supported that party's case. Such presumption is

particularly compelling when the evidence is not merely

incidental but goes to the root of the controversy.

33.Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, the

following circumstances emerge:

First, the prosecution was aware from the very inception that

the alleged incident occurred at a toll plaza equipped with

surveillance cameras.

Second, the petitioner specifically demanded production of

the footage within the period during which such data was

ordinarily preserved.

Third, the learned trial court passed explicit directions to

produce the footage.

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (15 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

Fourth, despite such directions, the authorities delayed the

matter and ultimately reported that the footage had been

deleted.

Fifth, even the alternative request made by the accused to

recover the data through technical experts was not

meaningfully facilitated.

34.These circumstances cumulatively provide sufficient basis for

invoking the presumption contemplated under Section

114(g) of the Evidence Act. The failure to preserve and

produce such crucial electronic evidence strikes at the very

root of fair investigation, which forms an integral part of the

guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The criminal justice system cannot

permit investigative agencies to suppress or destroy

evidence which could potentially exonerate an accused

person.

35.It must be emphasized that the legitimacy of criminal

prosecution rests not merely upon the authority of the State

but upon the fairness and transparency of the investigative

process. When the investigative machinery allows the most

material evidence to disappear, the Court cannot remain

oblivious to the consequences of such lapse.

36.When prosecution fails to produce the best evidence

available in its possession, the benefit of doubt must

necessarily accrue to the accused. The greater the severity

of punishment prescribed by the statute, the greater is the

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 02:45:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:36:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11008] (16 of 19) [CRLW-923/2023]

degree of caution required in evaluating the prosecution

case.

37.In the present matter, the alleged recovery pertains to

offences under the NDPS Act which carry severe statutory

punishments. Therefore, the standard of proof required from

the prosecution is correspondingly stringent. The absence of

the most reliable evidence, coupled with circumstances

suggesting deliberate non-production, seriously undermines

the credibility of the prosecution narrative.

38.The Court is therefore compelled to observe that the conduct

of the investigating agency in failing to secure and produce

the CCTV footage has materially prejudiced the defence of

the accused and has resulted in a situation where the truth

of the prosecution story cannot be satisfactorily verified.

ORDER

39.In light of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the

principles governing criminal jurisprudence, the Court is of

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Fast X Review Drivers Wanted Again

Love Horoscope Today for March 28, 2026: Friends’ opinions may cloud your judgement; follow your heart

Income Tax changes 2026: 50% HRA relief to Bengaluru, Pune, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad; taxpayers must weigh old vs new regime

Karan Johar lauds Aditya Dhar’s ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’

Fast X Review Drivers Wanted Again

Love Horoscope Today for March 28, 2026: Friends’ opinions may cloud your judgement; follow your heart

Income Tax changes 2026: 50% HRA relief to Bengaluru, Pune, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad; taxpayers must weigh old vs new regime

Karan Johar lauds Aditya Dhar’s ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’

Savitri Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11008) on 25 February, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur