Electronic evidence preservation applications must be adjudicated at the earliest stage to ensure a fair trial.

The petitioner was accused of assault and causing fracture injuries to a complainant on January 15, 2025, resulting in FIR No. 69/2025 under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 296, 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS).

The petitioner asserted a plea of alibi, claiming he was in Auraiya, U.P., for wedding preparations on the date of the incident.

Despite making multiple representations to investigating authorities between March and May 2025 to verify his location via electronic records, no action was taken.

On September 24, 2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 94 of the BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhind, seeking the preservation of Call Detail Records (CDR), mobile tower locations, and online payment receipts.

On November 7, 2025, the CJM postponed the hearing of said application until the stage of defense evidence.

The petitioner challenged this postponement under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The court primarily applied Section 94 of the BNSS, which grants the power to summon or preserve documents "necessary or desirable" for a trial.

It exercised inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent the abuse of the court's process.

The court relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) regarding the discovery of truth.

Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010), which framed fair investigation and trial as facets of Article 21.

The court applied Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) to emphasize the evidentiary sanctity and the necessity of preserving electronic records before they are overwritten or deleted.

The Court reasoned that the power under Section 94 of the BNSS must be exercised to advance the cause of justice, particularly regarding evidence that is "susceptible to overwriting or deletion with passage of time".

It noted that CDR and tower location data are retained by service providers for a limited duration; thus, postponing their preservation until the defense stage—which occurs late in the trial—risks the permanent destruction of evidence.

The Court found that such a delay causes "irreparable prejudice" to the petitioner's plea of alibi and constitutes a failure of justice.

By connecting the facts to the principles of Article 21, the Court held that the Trial Court's failure to act immediately ignored the necessity of bringing all relevant material before the court to ensure a fair adjudication.

The Court held that preservation of electronic evidence must be considered at the earliest stage to prevent the loss of relevant material.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the Section 94 BNSS application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of the order, and the concerned authorities were commanded to ensure the preservation of the records in accordance with law.