Interim Order 22

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: FIR No.455/24
PS Special Cell
State v.Tushar Goel etc.
23.09.2025
ORDER:
1. This order of mine shall dispose off the application
u/s 94 BNSS (earlier 91 CrPC) of applicant / accused Jatinder
Singh Gill @ Jassi seeking preservation of CCTV footages of
Amritsar Airport and the CDR, Location Chart of the witnesses
and entire raiding team involved in the alleged recovery and
seizure.
2. Arguments on the said application heard and the
application and IO report and the case file perused.
3. Keeping in view the contention of applicant /
accused Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi that the directions be issued
seeking preservation of firstly, the CCTV footages of Amritsar
Airport between 02.10.2024 to 03.10.2024 from 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. and secondly, CDRs and Location Charts of the
witnesses and the entire raiding team from 02.10.2024 to
10.10.2024 involved in the alleged recovery and seizure from the
applicant / accused Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi on 05.10.2024. 4.
Ld.Counsel for applicant /accused contended that
preservation of the same are necessary so that the same could be
produced at the relevant stage with the permission of the court as
the same should not be destroyed as per the rules issued by the
Telecom Ministry i.e. removal of said data after two years of the
said date and the applicant / accused Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi
should not be left remediless at the relevant stage. Ld. Counsel
-- 1 of 6 --
-2-
for applicant / accused has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar v. Union of
India 2014 SCC Online 1833
wherein it has been directed that
“the preservation of location of the officers concerned in the
NDPS case be done”.
5. Ld. Counsel for applicant / accused also contended
that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in U.T of Laddakh & Ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir National
Conference & Anr. 2023 SCC Online 1140 wherein it has been
laid down that “we make it absolutely clear that the High Courts
will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands.
It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await
an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may
be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a
judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later
Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting
judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the
earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held
by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of course,
will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case before it”.
6. On the other hand, Ld. CPP for the State has
strongly opposed the said application on the ground that said
application u/s 91 CrPC is not maintainable at the stage of
charge. Ld. CPP for the State also contended that even as per the
-- 2 of 6 --
-3-
IO report, the applicant / accused seeks the preservation of
CCTV recording for the period 02.10.2024 to 03.10.2024 from
10:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m.of the Amritsar Airport. But, IO has sent
the notice in this regard and the Amritsar Airport Authority has
replied that the said CCTV recordings are not available now for
the said period because the CCTV recordings are retained only
for 30 days. Ld. CPP for the State also contended that the IO in
his report has also specified that the CDR, Location chart of the
witnesses and raiding team, desired by the applicant / accused, it
is specified by the IO that the members of the raiding party
belonged to a Specialized Investigating Agency i.e. Special Cell
which deals with the matters of national interest, terrorism, arms
dealing, drug paddling and organized criminal activities and for
the same, the members of the raiding party have to remain in
touch with the secret informers and if the said details would be
provided then there would not only be the infringement of the
privacy of the police personnels and their family matters but also
it would disclose the identity of the secret informers in touch
with the police officers of the raiding party.
7. Heard.
8. Keeping in view the fact that the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India relied upon by the applicant / accused in
a case titled Suresh Kumar v. Union of India (
Supra) has itself
made it clear that demanding the call details / CDRs of the police
officers are likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution by
exposing the sources of information in relation to similar other
-- 3 of 6 --
-4-
cases of NDPS and so, only the locations of the raiding party
concerned at the time of alleged arrest of the appellant was
ordered to be preserved and not the call details. So, this shows
that even the said judgment does not entitle the accused to get
preserved the CDRs of police personnel of raiding team.
9. In light of the IO report that he has sought reply
from the Amritsar Airport Authority for preservation of CCTV
footage dated 02.10.2024 to 03.10.2024 from 10:00 p.m to 6:00
p.m through notice of IO dated 11.08.2025. But, Amritsar Airport
Authority replied that as per the BCAS AvSec Order 02/2023,
dated 30.01.2023, CCTV recordings are retained only for 30 days
and beyond this period the recordings gets lapsed and so, in
reference to notice dated 11.08.2025 of the IO, the CCTV
recordings for the said period is now not available.
10. Even, as per the IO report, the CDR details,
Location Chart of the police officers of raiding team desired by
the applicant / accused could not be provided because the raiding
team of the police officers belong to Specialized Investigating
Agency i.e. Special Cell and disclosure of the CDR details of the
police personnel would not only infringe the personal privacy as
well as the secrecy of the duties and the family matters of the
police officers being the members of raiding party but would also
expose the details of the secret informers as the members of
raiding party have to conduct investigation in the matters of
national interest, terrorism, arms dealing, drug paddling and
organized crime and for said purpose, the members of raiding
-- 4 of 6 --
-5-
party are in touch with the secret informers.
11. Also, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath
Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein it has been laid down that
“in
so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order
under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of
defence. When the section talks of the document being
necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and
desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a
prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who
makes it, whether police or accused”. The similar view has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh @ Baba in Crl. Appeal No.856/2024
pronounced on 12.02.2024 wherein it has been held that “accused
cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91
CrPC at the stage of framing of charge.”
12. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and in view of the
fact that the CDR details of the members of raiding party could
not be given to ensure secrecy of the secret informer and privacy
of their duties and their family matters as well as the CCTV
footage of the Amritsar Airport for the period 02.10.2024 to
03.10.2024 is now not available and in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v.
Swarn Singh @ Baba
(Supra) that the accused has no right to
invoke Section 91 CrPC / 94 BNSS at the stage of charge. So, I
do not find any merit in the present application of the applicant
-- 5 of 6 --
-6-
/accused Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi. Hence, the present
application of the applicant /accused Jatinder Singh Gill @ Jassi
u/s 94 BNSS (91 CrPC) is dismissed as not maintainable at this
stage as the case is at the stage of charge.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. Application is disposed off accordingly.
15. Copy of order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
applicant / accused.
16. Copy of order be sent to the concerned IO.
(Ekta Gauba Mann)
Special Judge (NDPS-01)
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/23.09.2025
-- 6 of 6 --