Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea To Preserve Police Officer's Call Records, Says Can't Breach His Privacy For Creating Evidence
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea to preserve the call records of a police officer who arrested the petitioner in the NDPS Act observing that for the possibility of creating evidence in favour of the accused, it cannot go to the extent of breaching privacy of a police officer.Justice Rajbir Sehrawat added that just to give credence to the petitioner's assumption,...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea to preserve the call records of a police officer who arrested the petitioner in the NDPS Act observing that for the possibility of creating evidence in favour of the accused, it cannot go to the extent of breaching privacy of a police officer.
Justice Rajbir Sehrawat added that just to give credence to the petitioner's assumption, the court cannot go into a roving inquiry.
"Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner; court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones."
This observation came in response to the plea challenging the dismissal order of ASJ, Hisar. The application was filed under Section 91 CrPC before the ASJ to preserve the call records of the police official, however, it was dismissed.
The petitioner was booked under Section 20 (C) and 61 of the NDPS Act for allegedly being involved in the trade of cannabis in commercial quantity. He claimed in defence that he was not arrested with the co-accused but from some other place and it can be proved by bringing the call details of police on record.
Considering the submission, the Court noted that the assumption of the petitioner is that the police official might have had his mobile phone with him at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested.
Adding that the the call details of the police official is not relevant as such, the Court said even if it is of some substance it is not necessary that the police had gone to arrest with their mobile phones and just for the possibility of creating evidence in favour petitioner it cannot go to the extent of violating police official's privacy.
With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Raman Chawla for the petitioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 209
Case Title: Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana