Accused Entitled to Seek Preservation of Electronic Evidence to Prove Illegal Custody: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order
Case Name: Keshav Gandhi v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-4783-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that an accused is entitled to seek preservation of relevant electronic evidence at an appropriate stage of criminal proceedings to ensure a fair trial. A request for preservation of call detail records and location data cannot be rejected merely because the stage of defence evidence has not yet arrived, particularly where such data may be deleted due to telecom retention policies.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. The trial Court had dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking directions for preservation and production of call detail records (CDR), tower location data, timeline information, IMEI/IMSI details, and connectivity logs relating to the official mobile numbers of certain prosecution witnesses.
The petitioner was facing prosecution in a case arising out of FIR No. 200 dated 27.07.2025 registered at Police Station Julana, District Jind under Sections 22-C and 27-A of the NDPS Act. During trial, he moved an application seeking preservation of the electronic records of police witnesses for the relevant period on the date of the alleged incident.
The petitioner contended that he had been kept in illegal custody by the police from approximately 12:13 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the date of the alleged recovery. According to the prosecution, however, he was apprehended only at 4:30 p.m. The petitioner argued that the call detail records and location data of the police officials were crucial to establish the true sequence of events and to support his defence that the alleged recovery had been falsely planted after illegal detention.
It was further argued that the requested electronic data was limited to specific mobile numbers and a defined time period, and that the prayer was only for preservation of the records so that they would remain available for judicial scrutiny at the appropriate stage of trial. The petitioner also submitted that telecom service providers retain such data only for a limited period and that failure to preserve it immediately could result in irreversible loss of potentially exculpatory evidence.
The State opposed the petition contending that the application was based on mere assumptions and amounted to an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of police officials. It was also argued that call detail records of the officials were not relevant for deciding the case and that the issue raised by the petitioner could be examined during trial.
The High Court observed that the trial Court had dismissed the application on the ground that the issue raised by the accused was a matter to be considered during evidence and that preservation of the call records of police officials was not warranted at that stage. However, the High Court found that such reasoning failed to consider the possibility that electronic data could be deleted in accordance with telecom data retention policies before the stage of defence evidence was reached.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tarun Sharma @ Vipul v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that preservation of relevant electronic evidence is an important safeguard to ensure a fair trial. The Court held that when a specific and limited request is made to preserve electronic records that may otherwise be lost, the trial Court should adopt a balanced approach protecting both privacy concerns and the rights of the accused.
The Court further noted that the apprehension regarding privacy and security of police officials could be addressed by directing that the records be preserved and produced in a sealed cover, leaving the question of admissibility and relevance to be determined at the appropriate stage of trial.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. The Court held that the petitioner’s request for preservation of electronic records relating to the specified mobile numbers for the relevant period deserved to be considered in accordance with law so that potentially relevant evidence is not lost before trial.