Bombay High Court

KIRAN KHIMANAND PANDEY (MRS.KIRAN DEEPAK VERMA)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 30 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition is dismissed; there is no legal provision to compel the police to disclose the CDR of an attorney‑client telephone conversation.

Summary

The petitioner, Kiran Khimanand Pandey (Mrs. Kiran Deepak Verma), filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking an order directing the police officer to produce the Call Data Record (CDR) of a telephone conversation between the petitioner and his advocate. The petition alleged that the CDR was necessary for her defence. The Court examined whether any statutory provision empowers it to compel the police to disclose such CDR, especially when it pertains to an attorney‑client communication. The Bench held that no such provision exists in the law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as being fundamentally misconceived.

Issues considered

Whether the court can direct a police officer to produce the Call Data Record of a telephone conversation between a client and his advocate under existing law

Subjects

Call Data Record
Attorney-Client Privilege
Police powers
Criminal Procedure Code
Writ Petition
Dismissal

Judgment

                    KSG                                                             8-WP-5680-2025.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO.5680 OF 2025

                    Kiran Khimanand Pandey
                    (Mrs.Kiran Deepak Verma)                                       … Petitioner
                             V/s.
                    The State of Maharashtra                                       … Respondent
                                        _______________________________________

                    Mr. Prakash Dhopatkar, Ms.Vithika S. Vhatkar i/b Santosh Vhatkar and
                    Associates for the Petitioner.
                    Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
                    Mr. Digvijay Patil, P.I. attached to Borivali Police Station, Mumbai.
                                     _______________________________________

                                                CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                        KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                DATE  : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                    P.C. :

                    1)              According to us, the present Petition is thoroughly misconceived.

                    According to us there is no provisions in law, for directing the police Officer

                    to give C.D.R. record of telephone conversation between client and his

                    Advocate.

                    2)              Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.




                                    ( KAMAL KHATA, J. )                    ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )



        Digitally
        signed by
        KIRAN
KIRAN SANJAY
SANJAY GHUGE
GHUGE Date:
       2026.10.05                                                                                        1/1
        18:47:09
        +0530

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.