Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Liladhar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9412) on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9412]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1189/2026
Liladhar S/o Hansraj, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Gopalsar,
Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Venkat Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
19/02/2026
1. The petitioner preferred the instant Misc. Petition for setting
aside of the order dated 13.01.2026, passed by the learned NDPS
Act cases, Hanumangarh in FIR No.457/2024 of Police Station
Hanumangarh Junction.
2. The Petitioner happens to be an accused of a prosecution under
NDPS Act. On 06-01-2026, he moved an application under Section
91 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to preserve evidence, the
description of which is given in Para No.4 & 5 in the application
above.
2.1. The issue involved in this case is now no more as res-integra
in light of the judgment passed after an elaborate discussion with
regard to the controversy involved in the case of Chotha Ram &
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SBCRLMP
No.3672/2023 decided on 04.03.2023. The relevant
paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder:-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:04 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:38:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9412] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1189/2026]“11. This Court feels that if for the purpose of
reserving and saving the right of the accused and for
the sake of justice, if a prayer is made to summon
the electronic evidence so as to elicit the truth behind
the story, then such prayer ought not to have been
declined. When the assertion is made that what is
wrong may be proved to be wrong and vice-versa in
the end so that the oil and truth must come out, then
the defence must be given an opportunity because
not giving an opportunity would mean denying them
to counter the charges or to defend themselves as
well as closing the door of justice for truth to enter
in.
12. It is true that after commencement of the trial,
the opportunity is being given to the prosecution to
lead or adduce evidence in support of charges,
whereafter an explanation under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. will be sought from the accused and then the
stage of entering into defence under Section 233 of
Cr.P.C. would come. It is also true that until the
stage of taking the evidence of the defence on record
comes, the defence evidence is not required to be
taken on record and for that purpose no defence
material would be summoned but here is not the
question of taking or tendering the defence evidence
or relying upon that rather it is observed that, as per
the Rules and Regulations of the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India, the data of call record is deleted
automatically after lapse of one year, then it
becomes the duty of the Court to save the data so as
to enable the defence or any other party to take use
of it at the appropriate stage. In fact, ordering
saving/storing/preserving data from destroy would
not mean that at the premature stage defence
evidence is taken.
13. It does not mean that allowing an application
under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for protection of
electronic records from deletion and summoning the
same to keep on record would mean taking evidence
of defence at a nascent stage; rather, it is being
done only for the purpose of saving and protecting
the evidence from being destroyed. In fact, the
defence evidence shall be taken and considered after
the stage of Section 233 of Cr.P.C. would come. The
Court of Law and Justice is not supposed to tolerate
vanishing or damaging the evidence of vital
importance, the presence of which would be
displaying the truth which would further mean that
the truth will prevail, that the truth will be separated
and set aside from the lies.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:04 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:38:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9412] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1189/2026]
14. It is not comprehensible that what is the harm if
the evidence of vital importance, which may play a
key role in adjudicating the charges, is saved, stored,
preserved and protected from being destroyed till the
actual stage of consideration of that evidence would
come.
15. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the
accused persons are taking risk in making prayer for
summoning call data record and tower locations
record of the police officers, who claim that they
apprehended the accused persons from a particular
place and at a particular time, which if produced and
found genuine then it may be a further piece of
evidence against them as the story of the
prosecution shall be proved genuine, however,
imagine that if the call data record and tower
locations of the police officers are not found to be
matching with the time and place mentioned in the
seizure memo, then it may be a serious dent in the
story set out in the charge-sheet and so then there is
no legal impediment in summoning the material even
at a premature stage just for the purpose of saving
the same from deletion. The main object of the
courts are meant to impart justice and for that very
object it is established. If something suggesting for
truth to come on record then in my opinion not
allowing the same would mean hiding the truth.
16. Why an opportunity could not be granted to the
accused to disprove the charges, though such
evidence would neither be considered before its
actual stage nor any finding would be given on it but
at least an order for protection/preservation of the
evidence can certainly be passed.
17. A plain reading of Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C.
if read together would elucidate that whenever it
appears to the Court that any evidence is essential
for the just decision of the case, then it may call or
recall such evidence or witness at any stage of the
trial. Even after culmination of trial and during
pendency of the appeal, such task can be undertaken
by the Court by taking resort to Section 391 of the
Cr.P.C. as the ultimate object of the Court is to
impart justice and justice only.
18. For the purpose of making differentiation
between truth and lie, the course of law is supposed
to provide ample opportunities to the parties of the
lis so that the ultimate task of securing the ends of
justice can be achieved.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:04 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:38:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9412] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1189/2026]
The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the
judgment referred to Supra, therefore, the petition deserves to be
allowed.
3. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition is allowed and it is ordered that
the order dated 13.01.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge,
NDPS Act cases, Hanumangarh in FIR No.457/2024, is hereby
quashed and set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to do all
the needful for preservation of the evidence, description of which
is mentioned in Para Nos.4 & 5 of the application dated 26-01-
2026. Needless to say, the evidence above can be used by the
parties during the course of trial.
4. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
196-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:20:04 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:38:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
