Siyasharan Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9295
1 MCRC-584-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 584 of 2026
SIYASHARAN GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma - DGA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of
BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the order dated
07.11.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind in RCT No.
755/2025, whereby the learned Trial Court postponed the hearing of the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 94 BNSS for calling and
preserving the Call Detail Records (CDR), mobile tower location and online
payment receipts till the stage of defence evidence.
The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that on
15.01.2025, the complainant Munnalal, District President of Gahoi Vaishya
Samaj, submitted an application at Police Station Kotwali, Bhind, alleging
that when he along with other members was preparing for organizing a Gahoi
Day Program scheduled on 19.01.2025, the accused persons namely
Ramkumar Gupta, Siyasharan Gupta (present petitioner), Jayprakash Gupta
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:15:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9295
2 MCRC-584-2026
and Rajkumar Gupta came to the Gahoi Community Hall and demanded

permission to conduct their separate function on the same date. Upon refusal,
the accused persons allegedly abused and assaulted the complainant, causing
fracture injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 69/2025 was
registered on 03.02.2025 at Police Station Kotwali, Bhind for offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 296, 351(3) read with 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 323, 325, 294, 506 read
with 34 IPC). After investigation, the case was filed before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhind and charges were framed against the accused persons on
02.07.2025. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 94 BNSS on 24.09.2025 seeking directions for
calling and preserving the Call Detail Records and mobile tower location of
the petitioner, his wife Malti Gupta and Nagendra Singh, proprietor of Balaji
Tour & Travels, along with online payment receipts of shopping allegedly
made on the date of the incident, in order to establish his plea of alibi.
However, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 kept the
application pending and directed that the same would be considered at the
stage of defence evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and contrary to the settled
principles of law. It is contended that the petitioner was not present at the
place of incident on 15.01.2025, as he had gone to Auraiya (U.P.) along with
his wife and driver for distributing wedding invitations and shopping for his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:15:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9295
3 MCRC-584-2026
son’s marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier addressed

several representations to the investigating authorities on 28.03.2025,
16.04.2025 and 26.05.2025 requesting them to obtain the Call Detail Records
and tower location to verify his presence at another place, but no action was
taken. Learned counsel submits that the Call Detail Records are retained by
telecom service providers only for a limited period, and postponing the
preservation of such records until the defence stage may result in loss or
destruction of crucial evidence, which would seriously prejudice the
petitioner’s defence.
It is further argued that the power under Section 94 BNSS to summon
or preserve documents can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings if
such documents are necessary for the just decision of the case. Reliance has
also been placed on the judgment of this Court in Vishal Bhati vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (order dated 15.03.2023) wherein this Court directed
preservation of CDR and tower location data in order to safeguard the right
of the accused to a fair trial. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order
dated 07.11.2025 be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for
preservation of the said records.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the
petition and supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is
submitted that the Trial Court has merely postponed consideration of the
application to the stage of defence evidence and has not rejected the same. It
is further contended that the petitioner will have adequate opportunity to
produce evidence in his defence at the appropriate stage of trial. However, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:15:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9295
4 MCRC-584-2026
is fairly submitted that preservation of electronic records, if directed by this

Court, would not prejudice the prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner had moved an application under Section 94 BNSS
seeking preservation of the Call Detail Records, mobile tower location and
online payment receipts for the relevant date in order to establish his defence
of alibi. The learned Trial Court, instead of considering the prayer for
preservation of such electronic evidence, has deferred the matter till the stage
of defence evidence.
The powers conferred upon the Court under Section 94 of the BNSS
are intended to secure production and preservation of documents or things
which are necessary or desirable for the purpose of inquiry or trial. The
expression “necessary or desirable” must be interpreted in a manner that
advances the cause of justice. The Call Detail Records along with mobile
tower location details of the respondents are prima facie relevant to the
allegations made in the complaint. Electronic evidence such as CDRs is
susceptible to overwriting or deletion with passage of time. If such material
is not preserved at the earliest stage, the same may be permanently lost,
causing irreparable prejudice to the complainant and resulting in failure of
justice.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain,
(1975) 4 SCC 428 has held that the basic purpose of judicial proceedings is
discovery of truth and that justice is best served when all relevant material is
brought before the Court. Similarly, in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:15:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9295
5 MCRC-584-2026
Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Apex Court emphasized that a fair investigation

and fair trial are integral facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
that nonproduction of material evidence may result in miscarriage of justice.
Further, in Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored the importance of electronic evidence
such as CCTV footage and observed that adverse inference may be drawn
where the best available evidence is withheld. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer,
(2014) 10 SCC 473, the Apex Court clarified the evidentiary sanctity of
electronic records and emphasized the necessity of preserving such records
in accordance with law. The principles laid down in these judgments make it
abundantly clear that preservation of electronic evidence is essential to
ensure a fair and just adjudication.
In the present case, the petitioner has been consistently requesting the
authorities to obtain and preserve the relevant records. In such
circumstances, postponing the consideration of the application to a later stage
may defeat the very purpose of preservation of the evidence. This Court is of
the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered
the application for preservation of the said records at the earliest stage to
ensure that relevant evidence remains available during the course of trial.
In exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, which
are intended to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends
of justice, this Court finds that interference is warranted. Consequently, the
petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is allowed. The impugned
order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:15:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9295
6 MCRC-584-2026
RCT No. 755/2025 is hereby set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to

consider and decide the petitioner’s application filed under Section 94 BNSS
for calling and preserving the Call Detail Records, mobile tower location and
online payment receipts expeditiously, preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned authorities shall
ensure preservation of the said records in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:15:28 PM