Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan (2025) has held that the right of an accused to a free and fair trial under Article 21 in seeking call/tower location details under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. 

What was the Background of Narendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan Case?   

• Narendra Kumar Soni (Petitioner) is accused in an anti-corruption case, where trap proceedings were allegedly conducted on 10th March 2023.  
• The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated in the case and that no actual trap proceedings took place during the stated time. 
• Two witnesses, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena, were shown to be present during the trap proceedings. 
• The petitioner contends that according to CCTV footage, only three people were present at the scene: the petitioner himself, the complainant's brother, and one unknown person. 
• The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC requesting preservation of mobile tower locations for: 
  • The complainant 
  • The Investigating Officer 
  • The two witnesses (Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena) 
  • Other members of the trap party 
• The Trial Court (Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota) partially allowed the application-  
  • Granted preservation of mobile locations for the complainant and Investigating Officer. 
  • Denied the request for preserving mobile locations of Sonu Meena, Jitender Meena, and other trap party members. 
• The petitioner challenged this partial rejection through a criminal miscellaneous petition in the High Court of Rajasthan, specifically seeking tower locations for Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Rajasthan High Court Observed that: 
  • On Right to Fair Trial:  
    • Principles of natural justice are integral to fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian  Constitution (COI). 
    • Denial of best available evidence or effective hearing would amount to denial of fair trial. 
  • On Privacy v. Justice:  
    • While call detail preservation may violate police officials' privacy rights, the accused's right to fair trial under Article 21 of the COI takes precedence. 
    • Some privacy breaches can be justified if it helps discover truth and render justice. 
  • On Electronic Evidence:  
    • Electronic records are admissible in criminal trials under Sections 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
    • Denial of electronic records that could help the accused's defense may lead to miscarriage of justice. 
  • On Section 91 CrPC:  
    • The section's purpose is to ensure no crucial evidence remains undiscovered. 
    • It helps facilitate fair case resolution by making relevant evidence available to the court. 
    • It helps prevent destruction or loss of crucial documents. 
    • The accused must prove necessity and relevance of such evidence before it's ordered. 
  • On Tower Location Data:  
    • Preserving call details and tower locations is necessary as this evidence could be lost forever. 
    • The court recognized the accused's right to invoke Section 91 CrPC. to obtain documents supporting their defense. 

What is the Right to Fair Trial? 

• About: 
  • Fair trials uphold justice and ensure societal integrity. Without them, wrongful convictions occur, eroding trust in the justice system. Governments must uphold law and order while respecting civil liberties.
• Legal Provisions: 

• Landmark Cases: 
  • Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1973): 
    • The court noted that determining bias's impact on judgment is not crucial; what matters is if a litigant could reasonably fear that a judicial bias influenced the final decision. 
  • Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2006) 
    • The Supreme Court emphasizes fair treatment for both accused and victims, highlighting the intrinsic right to fairness in criminal trials. 
  • Himanshu Singh Sabharwa v. State of M.P. Ors. (2008) 
    • Courts wield authority under relevant legal provisions to ensure fair trial, intervening when due process is compromised.