Accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses' CDR as defense material before the defense stage.

The applicants were charged under Sections 103(1) (murder) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following an incident registered at Police Station Singhpur.

During the trial (Sessions Trial No. 03/2025), the applicants filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to the BNSS) requesting the court to summon the mobile Call Detail Records (CDR) and tower locations of alleged eyewitnesses.

The applicants contended these witnesses were "planted" and that the records would prove their absence from the scene.

The trial court rejected the application on July 3, 2025, leading to the present challenge under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. (or Section 94 BNSS) to summon documents intended for their defense at the stage of framing of charges or the early stages of a trial.

Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 94 BNSS), which grants discretionary power to a court to summon documents deemed "necessary or desirable" for a trial.

State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568: while the prosecution may move for documents at any stage, an accused’s entitlement to seek production of defense-related documents ordinarily does not arise until the stage of defense, as the defense of the accused is not relevant at the stage of framing charges.

The High Court observed that the applicants sought the CDR and tower locations specifically to discredit prosecution witnesses and establish a defense plea.

Applying the Devendra Nath Padhi doctrine, the court reasoned that because the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had not yet concluded its evidence, the applicants could not use Section 91 to conduct a "roving and fishing inquiry" to collect defense material in advance.

The court noted that the reliability of eyewitnesses and their presence at the scene is a matter of factual appreciation to be tested through cross-examination and defense evidence at the appropriate legal stage, rather than through an interlocutory application for document production at this juncture.

The court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS, clarifying that the applicants remain at liberty to seek such evidence at the appropriate defense stage of the trial. The trial court was directed to proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.