Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 638 (RAJ)

Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-06

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1 Both the revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Sections 438/442 of BNSS against the order dated 06.12.2024, passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Session Case No.49/2023, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 91 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences in this case are under Sections 302/109, 115, 116 IPC and Section 3/25 (ib)(a)(7)(8) of Arms Act. Counsel submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and the Police has wrongly been shown the place of arrest of the petitioners as from the mobile location, it is apparent that the petitioners were not present at the place from where they were stated to be arrested by the Police. Counsel further submits that at the time of recovery of weapon, the petitioners were also not present with the Investigating Officer. In these circumstances, for just decision of the case, it is necessary to obtain the call details of mobiles of the petitioners, recovery witness Gautam Jhala, Motbir Suresh Kumar, witness Dinesh Lakhawat and Investigating Officer. But, the learned trial court while ignoring the aforesaid aspects, in a mechanical/casual manner rejected the applications of the petitioners. Thus, the impugned order being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned AAG has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record. 5. It is the general principle that when determining whether to frame charges, the court must base its decision on the material produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet. It emphasizes that if the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient, there is no need for the court to call for additional documentary evidence at the charge stage. 6. However, the court considering the fact that the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Section 302 IPC and acknowledges the importance of the petitioner's defense in ensuring a fair trial. It emphasizes that if the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient, there is no need for the court to call for additional documentary evidence at the charge stage. 6. However, the court considering the fact that the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Section 302 IPC and acknowledges the importance of the petitioner's defense in ensuring a fair trial. As such, this Court deems it appropriate to order that the call details of the accused- petitioners' mobile phones be summoned, but with a specific condition that these call details are to be used only during the trial stage and not during the current stage of the charge argument. The framing of charges will proceed by the trial court only on the basis of charge sheet and to see whether a prima facie case is established against the petitioners or not. 7. So far as the other witnesses i.e. recovery witness Gautam Jhala, Motbir Suresh Kumar, witness Dinesh Lakhawat and Investigating Officer are concerned, this Court is not satisfied that summoning the call details of the aforesaid witnesses is necessary. The Court should not only consider whether the accused had reasonable opportunity of defending himself by adducing the proposed call details, the court should also consider the question whether the aforesaid evidence proposed to be adduced does have any relevancy. 8. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of with the direction to the trial court to summon the call details of the mobiles of the petitioners only and proceed with the trial as early as possible. 9. Stay applications are also decided.