What has come as a shot in the arm for the accused persons is the latest, landmark, laudable and learned judgment titled Ajay Nogare s/o Kailash Nogare v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 491 / 2020 delivered just recently on July 1, 2021 by a Single Judge Bench of Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Subodh Abhyankar wherein it is observed that an accused can't be denied his right to adduce evidence within parameters of the law and if accused wishes to secure the evidence to lead the same at the appropriate stage of the trial can't be said to be unwarranted or unreasonable. It must be apprised here that the Single Judge Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar was hearing a challenge to the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain rejecting an application filed under Section 91 of the CrPC to obtain the call details of the mobile numbers of the present applicant – Ajay and other co-accused Monu. It must also be mentioned here that the applicant wanted to get hold of the call details so as to prove that when the incident took place on March 24, 2019, he was not present on the spot.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this brief, brilliant, balanced and bold judgment wherein it is put forth that:
The applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.270/2019 whereby the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected, wherein the call details of the mobile numbers of the present applicant-Ajay and the other co-accused Monu were sought to be called, as according to the applicant, when the incident took place on 24.3.2019 he was not present on the spot.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that:
In the aforesaid application, the CCTV footage of the Shankh Dwar Mahakaal Mandir and Harsiddhi Mandir dated 24.3.2019 between 6 to 7 p.m. has also been sought. The said application of the applicant has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that no reason has been assigned as to why the call details are being sought. So far as the record of the CCTV footage is concerned, it is submitted that the distance from the place of incident i.e., Harsiddhi Mandir to Shankh Dwar, Mahakaal Mandir is hardly at a distance of 200 meters from where the incident took place and it takes only a minute to reach hence there is no need to call for the record of CCTV footage also.

On the one hand, the Bench then brings out in para 3 that:
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the call details as well as tower locations of the mobile numbers of the present applicant-Ajay and the other co-accused Monu are necessary for their defence and it is submitted that the CCTV footage is equally important as at the time of the incident the applicant was at Shank Dwar Mahakaal Mandir. Thus, counsel has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

On the contrary, the Bench then also reveals in para 4 that:
Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone, gist and bedrock of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 5 wherein it is held that:
Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary, including the impugned order, this Court finds that although the applicant's application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed at an early stage but the same has been filed to secure the record regarding the CCTV footage, call details and tower locations of the mobile numbers of the present applicant and the other co-accused Monu to ensure that they were present at some other place other than the place of the incident. In the considered opinion of this court, an accused cannot be denied his right to adduce evidence within parameters of law, and in the present case he is only seeking to secure the evidence which he might lead at the appropriate stage of the trial which cannot be said to be unwarranted or unreasonable. In such circumstances, it would be expedient to direct the respondent to ensure that the aforesaid data regarding the telephone numbers of the present applicant-Ajay and Monu be secured, including the call details and the tower locations, as also the CCTV footage of Shankh Dwar Mahakaal Mandir, if they are not already deleted. An affidavit to this effect be also file by the investigating officer before the Trial court within two weeks from today.

Finally, we then see that in the concluding para 6, the Bench therein holds that:
With the aforesaid directions, the present M.Cr.C. stands disposed of. The respondent/State is also directed to ensure that the order passed by this Court is strictly complied with. Certified copy, as per rules.

In essence, the crux of this cogent, commendable, composed and convincing judgment is what is stated in the law laid down wherein it is postulated that, An accused cannot be denied his right to adduce evidence within parameters of law, and in the present case he is only seeking to secure the evidence which he might lead at the appropriate stage of the trial which cannot be said to be unwarranted or unreasonable. Of course, all the courts must always comply fully, firmly and finally with what has been laid down by the Single Judge Bench of Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.