State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Deepak Rai on 27 December, 2022

[Cites 10, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Deepak Rai on 27 December, 2022

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                                1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                    Cr.MMO No.362 of 2020
                                    Date of Decision: December 27, 2022
    State of Himachal Pradesh                                               ...Petitioner.




                                                                           .
                                             Versus





    Deepak Rai                                                             ..Respondent.
    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the Petitioner:             Mr.Hemant          Vaid,      Additional          Advocate
                                    General.





    For the Respondent:             Mr.N.S.   Chandel,    Senior    Advocate,
                                    alongwith Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate.

    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner-State has approached this Court, assailing order dated 05.08.2020, passed by Special Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Crl.Misc.

Application No.120-NL/4 of 2020, titled as Deepak Rai vs. State of H.P. & another, filed by accused Deepak Rai under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') in the trial pending adjudication in FIR No.230 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020 registered under Sections 18 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'), in Police Station Nalagarh, Police District Baddi, H.P., for directing the office of Superintendent of Police (Leave Reserved) to preserve CCTV footages of locations mentioned in application and Call Detail Records (CDRs) alongwith locations of mobile phone numbers and to preserve CCTV footage of places, mentioned in the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:37:25 :::CIS 2

application for the period detailed in the application, and to produce the same in the Court.

3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as .

well as learned arguing counsel for the respondent and have also gone through impugned order as well as record produced during hearing of the petition.

4. Special Judge Nalagarh has directed the Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi, to get preserved CCTV footage of from CCTV cameras installed on places mentioned in the application filed by Deepak Rai, through concerned service providers and also to furnish CDRs with location of mobile number detailed in the application through concerned service provider.

5. It is settled that accused is required to be afforded fair opportunity to prove his or her innocence and application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be made at any stage of the trial and scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted only to documents on which prosecution relies and filing of this application cannot be restricted to the stage contemplated in Section 233 and 243 of Cr.P.C., but this Section empowers the Court to ensure production of any document or other thing "necessary or desirable" for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code by issuing summon or written order to those in possession of such materials.

6. Keeping in view the defence taken by accused persons in the main case, it is apparent that documents/material ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:37:25 :::CIS 3 asked to be preserved and summoned in the Court is "desirable and necessary" for the purpose of fair and transparent trial.

7. Impugned order is in consonance with ratio of pronouncements of the Supreme Court including V.K. Sasujaka .

vs. State Rep. by Superintendent, (2012) 9 SCC 771; and State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, and pronouncements of this High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manohar Lal, ILR 2019 (IV) HP 1263/2020 (1) Him.L.R (HC) 468;

Ishwar Dass vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, ILR 2018 (II) HP 530, following the judgments passed by the Supreme Court.

8. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the Special judge Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., directing the State through Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi, to preserve the record as detailed in the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by Deepak Rai.

9. In view of above, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also pending application(s), if any.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

December 27, 2022 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:37:25 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court