Devangana Kalita vs State Of Delhi Nct

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 08 January, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 5 June, 2026

+ W.P. (CRL.)3373/2023, CRL.M.A.31320/2023,
CRL.M.A.31322/2023 and CRL.M.A.4960/2023.
DEVANGANA KALITA
D/o Dr. Hem Chandra Kalita
R/o A-P-Q-15, Assam Medical College Campus,
Dibrugarh, Assam-786002.

Also at:
Flat No.L-32, Tara Apartments,
Alaknanda, New Delhi. …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Chaitanya
Sundriyal, Mr. Manvendra Singh
Shekhwat, Mr. Siddharth Kaushal,
Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma,
Advs.
versus
STATE OF DELHI, NCT
Through The SHO,
PS Crime Branch. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Prasad and Mr. Madhukar
Pandey, SPP alongwith Mr. Ayodhya
Prasad, Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Mr.
Dhruv Pande, Mr. Saravjeet Singh,
Mr. Harshil Jain Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read
with Sections 528/529 of BNSS, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 1 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

challenge the Order dated 05.08.2023, whereby the Application under S.207
Cr.P.C. of the petitioner has been decided.
2. The Petitioner stated that she was a law abiding citizen with deep
roots in the Society. She was enrolled as a student at Jawahar Lal Nehru
University and is pursuing PhD in Women‟s Studies at the Centre for
Women‟s Studies. Her contributions to peaceful campaigns for equal rights
of the marginalized has been recognized, despite her young age. The
Petitioner has participated in Conferences and Seminars and published
various Articles.
3. An FIR No.59/2020, P.S. Crime Branch was registered on the
Complaint of SI Arvind Kumar, Crime Branch, New Delhi for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B IPC, The allegations made were that a
conspiracy was hatched by a student of JNU along with his associates, for
the riots in Delhi between 23.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. While the Petitioner
was in Judicial Custody in FIR No.50/2020, she was produced before the
Duty Magistrate on 06.06.2020 and was sent to Police Custody for two days
in the present FIR No.59/2020, P.S. Crime Branch.
4. An Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 09.07.2020
on behalf of the Petitioner seeking the monitoring of investigations in the
underlying FIR, qua other offences leading to/committed during the period
of communal violence that took place in February, 2020. The Petitioner
placed on record, a wide gamut of material easily available in the public
domain which points to the offences committed by third parties, instigation
and incendiary speeches by pro-CAA demonstrators and reluctance of the
Investigating Agency to probe such material. The attention was also brought
of the learned Trial Court to the material which was available with the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 2 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

Respondent Agency, but had not been brought before the Court. The
Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Appellant, was dismissed
on 14.07.2020.
5. On 12.11.2020, the Petitioner filed an Application seeking regular
Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed vide Order dated
28.01.2021. The Bail was eventually granted by this Court on 15.06.2021.
The Respondent Agency filed SLP (CRL.) No.4289/2021 to challenge the
Order of this Court granting Bail, but the Supreme Court vide Order dated
02.05.2023 did not interfere with the Order of this Court.
6. The Chargesheet was filed on 16.09.2020 . Thereafter, the Petitioner
moved an Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C seeking inter alia , supply
of hard copy of the Main Chargesheet. The Application was disposed of vide
Order dated 21.10.2020 by the learned Special Judge, with the direction to
supply hard copy of the 18,000 page Chargesheet to all the Accused.
7. On 22.11.2020, the First Supplementary Chargesheet in FIR
No.59/2020 was filed. The Second Supplementary Chargesheet was filed on
24.02.2021.
8. The Petitioner filed the first Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C
on 08.04.2021 whereby the Petitioner sought a set of electronic evidence
that was relied upon by the Respondent Agency, in the main Chargesheet
and in the First Supplementary Chargesheet. This included the Chats in
WhatsApp group of the Respondent Agency, which had been selectively
extracted in the Chargesheet and had been relied upon to allegedly pinpoint
the purported “ precipitation of violence in Jaffrabad area ”, CCTV footages,
video clips and clone copies of other Accused, witnesses and Officers of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 3 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

Respondent Agency, whose mobile phones were seized during the
investigation in FIR No.59/2020.
9. On 02.03.2022 the Third Supplementary Chargesheet was filed.
10. The Petitioner filed two additional Applications under Section 207
Cr.P.C., on 18.03.2023 seeking documents/data relied upon in the Second
and third Supplementary Chargesheet .
11. Some of the co-accused in their Applications under Section 207
Cr.P.C., had also sought similar electronic evidence from the Respondent
Agency and was sought by the Petitioner, but were denied by the
Respondent Agency.
12. The Respondent Agency in its reply dated 30.09.2021 to the first
Application under S.207 Cr.P.C. , stated that they were willing to supply
certain documents sought by the Petitioner, but refused to supply other
crucial material that found mention in the Chargesheet, as well as the
Supplementary Chargesheet. The reasons given for the non-supply of the
data/documents was that the Full text file of WhatsApp chats between other
co-accused and cloned copies of the phones of the other co-accused that
were seized, cannot be supplied as it is personal data and effects the privacy
of the respective co-accused. The Cloned copies of phones seized relating to
other co-accused that are yet to be charged, cannot be supplied as the
investigation is ongoing.
13. Further, Video statements of protected witnesses , cannot be supplied
to the Petitioner due to the protection provided to these witnesses. However,
the “ truncated copies of the statements of Protected Witnesses ” have already
been supplied. It was further stated that if any of the data from the phones
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 4 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

seized is relied upon by the Respondent Agency, the same would be
supplied to the Petitioner.
14. The full text file of WhatsApp Group of the North-West Zone of the
Respondent Agency from 15.12.2019, till the date of seizure of phone and
cloned copies of the phone of Police Officers from which the chats were
extracted, cannot be supplied as it contains information that is secret and
confidential in nature . It was also stated that supply of such information
would affect the privacy of the Police Officers concerned. It was further
submitted that non-supply of such data would not cause any prejudice to the
Petitioner. Moreover, the data relied upon against the petitioner, had already
been supplied her. The rest of the Data had no relevance to the case and
hence non-supply of the same would not cause prejudice to the Petitioner.
15. A set of documents/data sought by the Petitioner, were sent to FSL,
Rohini/CFSL, CBI for examination and the results, were awaited. The same
would be provided to the Petitioner after its examination, if anything was
relied upon against the Accused.
16. In the meanwhile, on 11.09.2023, the Petitioner raised an objection
relying upon the decision of this Court in State vs. Mohd. Qasim & Ors .
2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 1835, that the Respondent Agency ought to be
called to reveal the status of investigation, before the matter proceeds to the
stage of arguments on Charge. The learned Special Judge granted liberty to
the Petitioner to file the Application, to raise such contentions.
17. The Petitioner then filed Application dated 12.09.2023, seeking
clarity on status of investigation in FIR No59/2020 , before proceeding to the
stage of arguments on Charge.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 5 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

18. The Respondent filed a common reply dated 14.09.2023 to these
Applications.
19. The first Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C was filed by the
Petitioner on 08.04.2021 which was disposed of on 05.04.2023, and
directions were given for supply for various documents like WhatsApp
Group of DPSG, JCC group, MSJ, CAB etc. The due compliance of this
Order was done by the Respondent Agency. Thereafter, vide Order dated
03.08.2023 documents like AAZMI documents etc. kept in sealed cover,
were also supplied to all the accused persons including the Petitioner.
20. Learned Special Judge disposed of the Application dated 12.09.2023
and other similar Applications filed by the Petitioner and the other co-
accused persons, vide Order dated on 04.09.2024. The Special Judge, while
making a reference to the case of Mohd. Qasim & Ors . (supra), held that the
Prosecution must inform the Court if the Chargesheet has been finally filed
and the case was ripe for hearing arguments on Charge. It was further noted
that as per the Written Submissions filed by the Prosecution, the
investigations qua the Accused persons was complete which must mean that
the investigation is complete qua all the Accused persons, as Charge sheeted
till date, and as such, the Prosecution had disclosed that the investigation is
complete and the matter was ripe for hearing arguments on Charge .
21. It is stated that the Order dated 04.09.2024 of learned Special Judge,
limited the scope of any potential supplementary Chargesheet, to that of
newly collected evidence; that too pertaining to individuals who have not
been charge sheeted till date. As such, the submissions of the Prosecution
and the observations of the Special Judge in the Order dated 05.04.2023
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 6 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

regarding supply of material in supplementary chargesheet to the Accused
persons, has been rendered infructuous.
22. The Respondent in their reply to the two subsequent Applications
under S.207 Cr.P.C., communicated that most of the electronic evidence
sought by the Petitioners, was pending examination in the FSL.
23. The learned Special Judge vide impugned Order dated 05.04.2023 ,
disposed of all the Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C., qua all the co-
accused, except the Petitioner. The learned Special Judge while concurring
with the decision of the Respondent to not supply electronic evidence that
was supposedly not relied upon by the Respondent Agency, recorded that
that I.O has provided the copies of the statements of the Protected witnesses
as available with him to the Accused. It is also stated that audio-video
recordings of the statements of un-protected witnesses, would be supplied.
24. The Respondent Agency filed the Fourth Supplementary
Chargesheet, on 07.06.2023.
25. On 05.08.2023 the Petitioner’s Application under Section 207
Cr.P.C. was decided, whereby the learned Special Judge held that refusal of
the Respondent Agency to handover the copy of set of electronic
evidence/documents/data sought by the Petitioner, was justified and not bad
in law and accordingly, the Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was
disposed of.
26. The Petitioner filed present W.P.(Crl.) 3373/2023 titled ‘Devangana
Kalita vs. State of NCT Delhi’ challenging the Order dated 05.08.2023
which is pending adjudication.
27. The grounds of challenge are that while it is the prerogative of the
Prosecution to be selective about which evidence it wishes to use against the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 7 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

Accused, it is not for the Prosecution Agency to decide which evidence is
relevant for the purpose of the Accused at the stage of Charge. Every piece
of evidence which has been seized by the Police during the investigations, is
deemed to be in Magisterial custody in terms of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C and
otherwise also, ought to be forwarded to the Magistrate and be provided or
allowed to be inspected by the Accused.
28. In several cases, including Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of NCT
Delhi 2019 SCC Online Del 11509; V Plus Technology (P) Ltd. vs. State of
NCT Delhi 2022 SCC Online Del 1223 held that forwarding of items seized
or a Report of Seizure thereby ensuring that the seized items, are deemed
magisterial custody is mandatory. The CCTV footage in question has been
seized and ought to have been forwarded to the Magistrate, and is, therefore,
open to inspection.
29. Furthermore, the denial of access to electronic evidence seized by the
Police during investigation, which is listed in the List of Documents filed
along with the Police Report, but not filed before the Court and thus, not
open to inspection, is wholly contrary to the spirit, intent and adherence to
the principles of fair investigation or a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21
Constitution of India.
30. It is further contended that for the purpose of fair trial the provisions
enshrined in Section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C to ensure supply of all the
documents must be followed. The Prosecution cannot on its own decide
what it wants and what it does not wish to provide to the Accused.
31. Reliance is placed on Ashutosh Verma vs. CBI 2015 1 AD (Delhi) 78;
V.K. Sasikala vs. State (2012) 9 SCC 771; M/s Viniyoga International vs.
State 1985 CriLJ 761; V.K Jha vs. CBI ILR (2009) VI Delhi 206; Shashi
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 8 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

Bala vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors . 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3791
and Shakuntala vs. State of Delhi ILR (2007) I Delhi 1005.
32. The learned Special Judge has relied on the Prosecution submission
that the prosecution has supplied those portion of CCTV footage which were
relevant to the Accused, is mis-placed and violates the spirit of Section 207
Cr.P.C. To state that list of unrelied documents need not be filed at the stage
of Section 207 Cr.P.C is based on erroneous interpretation of the decision of
the Supreme Court in P. Ponnuswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1543.
33. The entire chats of Police in WhatsApp Groups including “OPS/SP”
need not be filed, since they would contain information about the Police
officials and their activities, but the relevant chats relied upon had been filed
and supplied. The two grave errors have been committed by the Special
Judge in placing blind faith on the Prosecution i.e. it has acted with utmost
impartiality while selecting the relevant Whatsapp messages and secondly ,
that the Prosecuting Agency has acted in a non-adverserial manner. There
can still be a possibility of crucial evidence being inadvertently left out. The
Accused at such crucial stage of proceeding where a valuable statutory right
of discharge is available, cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the
prosecuting agency. It is further asserted that even if the Accused persons
are not provided with the electronic record, they have a right to view such
video in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.
Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala AIR 2020 SC 1.
34. The learned Special Judge erred in placing reliance on Section 207
Cr.P.C while dismissing the Application of the Petitioner seeking such
videos. Furthermore, reliance is placed on INX Media vs. CBI Crl. M.C
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 9 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

1338/2021 decided by this Court on 10.11.2021, wherein it was held that the
unrelied documents recovered during the investigation which have a bearing
on the Prosecution case, must be informed to the Accused.
35. In a situation of riot, this Court in Shambir & Ors. vs. State 254
(2018) DLT 488 held that the videos should be collected for the purpose of
identification of actual perpetrators of violence and it is incumbent for the
Special Judge seized of the riot cases to ensure the filing and scrutiny of
videos along with Police Reports.

36. Reliance is also placed on Siddhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs.
CBI (2010) 6 SCC 1, V.K. Sasikala vs. State (2012) 9 SCC and Chandra
Shekar Das vs. CBI Crl. Rev. No.63 of 2015 decided by Ahmedabad High
Court on 27.03.2015.
37. It is thus, submitted that the learned Special Judge erroneously denied
the documents to the Petitioner under 207 Cr.P.C. Hence, a prayer is made
that the impugned Order be set aside.
38. The Respondent in its short Reply has stated that the Petitioner is an
Accused in the Delhi Riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case, registered as FIR
No.59/2020 at P.S. Crime Branch. The conspiracy was hatched by the
masterminds to undermine the secular fabric, internal security and integrity
of the nation, and to propagate their ulterior agenda of inciting communal
tensions under the facade of opposition to the CAA/NRC.
39. It was submitted that the main Chargesheet followed by four
supplementary Chargesheets have been filed qua 18 Accused persons, while
the investigation is still continuing, as contemplated under Section 173 (8)
Cr.P.C. The 6 accused have been released on bail, while the bail of
remaining accused persons have been rejected vide reasoned Orders. While
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 10 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

Bail has been granted to the Petitioner by this Court vide Order dated
15.07.2021, the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.4289/2021 has expressly
prohibited any other party from using this Order of Bail dated 15.06.2021 as
a precedent in any other proceedings.
40. The other Accused persons had filed Applications under Section 207
Cr.P.C. Although, the learned Special Judge while disposing of the
Applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C, has wherever necessary directed
furnishing of relevant document, information to the Accused persons as such
directions have been duly complied with. The Application under Section 207
Cr.P.C filed by the 11 Accused including the Petitioner, already stands
disposed of.
41. While the learned Special Judge vide Order dated 05.08.2023 directed
arguments on charge to be advanced on day to day basis from 11.09.2023
the Counsel for the Petitioner first objected to continuation on Arguments on
Charge, seeking specific statement about completion of investigations.
Similar Application was filed by the two other Accused on 14.09.2023.
42. These Applications, however were disposed of, though the Arguments
on charge got stalled from 06.01.2024 to 04.09.2024. Thereafter, the
Arguments on Charge commenced and the State has already completed its
arguments in the five dates. The matter was then listed for continuation of
arguments on Charge, by the Accused persons. Eleven out of eighteen have
made their submissions, while seven are yet to commence/conclude their
arguments. The present Petition is nothing but an manifest attempt to
protract and obstruct the course of trial.
43. In this Writ Petition vide Order dated 12.09.2024, this Court directed
that the arguments on Charge may continue though the final Order may not
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 11 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

be passed. The continuation of such Order is causing detriment to the
Prosecution and also prejudice to the rights of the Accused and is hampering
the administration of judicial process.
44. It is further submitted that the Writ is not maintainable against the
interlocutory orders, but the Petitioner has not only insisted on the Writ
Petition, but has also attempted to portray that it is an abuse of process of
law while imputing malafide to the Prosecution.
45. It is stated that in terms of Section 21(3) NIA Act, an Appeal against
an interlocutory Order is barred.
46. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Writ Petition be dismissed.
47. Written submissions have been filed both by the Petitioner as well as
the Respondent which are essentially on the same lines as the grounds
agitated in their respective pleadings.
Submissions heard and record perused .
48. In FIR No.59/2020 admittedly, four Supplementary Chargesheets
have been filed. Section 207 applies after the Chargesheet, is filed.
49. In this context, it may be relevant to first refer to Section 207 Cr.P.C
which reads as under :
“ 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and
other documents .— In any case where the proceeding
has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate
shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a
copy of each of the following:—
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section
154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of
section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 12 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part
in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been
made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of
section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded
under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof
forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under
sub-section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any
such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii)
and considering the reasons given by the police officer
for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the
statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate
thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that
any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he
shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy
thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it
either personally or through pleader in Court. ”

50. In terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to the copies
of first Police Report, FIR, Confession Statements, if any, recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C, Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the persons whom the
Prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses. The only exception to the
Rule in regard to supply of Statement under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. is, if
the Police officer is of the opinion that any part of the Statement is not
relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that the disclosure to the
accused is not essential in the interest of justice, or is inexpedient in public
interest. It shall indicate that part of the Statement and append the note
requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part of the Statement from the
copies to be provided to the Accused.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 13 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

51. Therefore, all the documents which form the part of the Chargesheet
and are sought to be relied upon by the Prosecution, has to be mandatorily
supplied to the Accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C., before proceedings
to the stage of Arguments on Charge.
52. The Constitution Bench in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs,
Bombay vs. L.R. Melwani & Anr . 1968 SCC OnLine SC 161 had observed
that the Report under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. has to be accompanied by all
the documents relevant and relied upon by the Prosecution and that the
Accused is entitled to a copy of all such documents.
53. First and foremost, what emerges is that the WhatsApp Chats etc. of
the Police Officials which were sought were not relied upon documents. As
has been observed, only the WhatsApp Chats which were not relied upon
have not been supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C., while all other WhatsApp
Chats etc. have already been supplied. It is settled law that, at the stage of
Section 207 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner/Accused is entitled only to the relied
upon documents and, at best, a list of unrelied upon documents, but not
copies of the unrelied upon documents.
54. In Nelson Motis vs. Union of India 1992 (4) SCC 7 111 and in
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 2014 SC 1400, it was held that the
purpose of Section 207 Cr.P.C. is to give an adequate Notice to the accused
of the material to be used against him during trial and therefore, all such
documents must be provided to the accused.
55. Similar observations have been made by Division Bench of this Court
in Dharambir vs. CBI ILR (2008) 2 Del. 842 and Dinesh Puri vs. State 2016
SCC OnLine Del 5551.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 14 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

56. In this regard observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Siddharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma vs. State AIR 2010 SC 2352 are of
relevance. While explaining the expression „ due process of law ‟, it was
stated that it shall deem fairness to trial . This constitutional mandate and
statutory right given to the accused, places an implied obligation upon the
Prosecution to make fair disclosure which would take within its ambit
furnishing of documents on which the Prosecution intends to rely, whether
filed in the Court or not.

57. The documents should essentially be furnished to the accused which
are obtained during the investigations bona fide by the Investigating Agency
and in the opinion of the Prosecutor is relevant and would help in arriving at
the truth. Section 207 has a material bearing on this aspect, it requires that
the Court should provide copies of the Police Report, statements,
confessional statements and the documents free of cost to the accused, as
contemplated under Section 173 (5) and (6) Cr.P.C. The documents
submitted to the Magistrate along with the Report under Section 173(5)
would be deemed to be included as documents which have been sent to the
Magistrate during the course of investigation, as per requirements of Section
170(2) of the Code.
58. It was further observed in Siddharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma
(supra) that certain rights of the accused flow from the codified law as well
as equitable concepts of constitutional jurisdiction as substantial variation to
such procedure, would frustrate the very basis of fair trial to claim
documents which within the purview of Section 207, 243 read with Section
173 must be read in its entirety. The power of the Court under Section 91
Cr.P.C. to summon documents signifies and provides precepts which will
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 15 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

govern the right of the accused to claim copies of the statements and
documents which the Prosecution has collected during the investigations and
upon which they rely.
59. In P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dilip vs. State of Kerala AIR 2020 SC 1, the
Apex Court similarly held that under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Magistrate is
under an obligation to provide the entire chargesheet along with the
statements and documents relied upon by the Prosecution.
60. Therefore, the significance of supplying all the documents relied by
the prosecution in the Charge sheet, can never be questioned to ensure the
fair trial and all the documents in accordance with S.207, have to be
necessarily provided to the accused.
61. The Applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C of other Accused
seeking similar electronic evidence from the Respondent Agency were
sought, but were denied by the Respondent Agency. The learned Special
Judge vide Order dated 05.04.2023 concurred with the decision of the
Respondent to not supply the electronic evidence that was supposedly not
relied upon by the Respondent Agency, by observing, as under:
“…
9.5 However, IO as well as Ld. Special Public
Prosecutor had stated that the entire Whatsapp chats
of Whatsapp Group DPSG, all JCC groups, MSJ &
CAB would be filed by way of supplementary charge-
sheet and supplied to all accused persons . Thus, this
issue also gets resolved.

10. IO had stated that document bearing no. 06 is the
record seized from Aazmi office during the search
conducted in the office and they are lying in sealed
condition in the Malkhana.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 16 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

The relevant portion would be extracted after the order
of the Court and filed by way of a supplementary
charge-sheet and supplied to the accused persons. In
view of the said statement of the IO, this does not
require adjudication and they would besupplied with
the supplementary chargesheet.

10.3 SZ document bearing no. 26, 28, 31, 32, 35 & 68
are audio-video recordings of unprotected witnesses .
IO had stated that the same (except where the witness
refers to a protected witness) would be supplied to all
accused persons by way of a supplementary
chargesheet after getting mirror image of the same
from FSL. In view of the same, again this does not
require any order from this Court.

11.2 Furthermore, statement of protected witness
namely ‘Beta’, Platinum’, ‘Helium’, ‘Saturn’ and
‘Johny’ with necessary redaction and supply of video
recordings of statement of unprotected witnesses and
protected witnesses with necessary redactions was
asked for.
IO has provided the copies of the statements of the said
witnesses as available to him, to the accused. It was
also stated that audio video recordings of the statement
of the unprotected witnesses (except where it mentions
protected witness) would be supplied. ”
62. Thus, by the aforesaid Order, not only to other accused, but also to
the Petitioner, all the documents forming part of charge-Sheet, were directed
to be supplied to all the accused including the Petitioner.

63. The Petitioner is one of the Accused against whom the Chargesheet
has been filed by the Prosecution in the aforesaid FIR. On 03.08.2023 the
Petitioner had filed final re-list of documents marked as A, B and C, stating
the documents to be supplied by the Prosecution.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 17 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

64. The Petitioner herein, had also filed three separate Applications
under Section 207 Cr.P.C. which got decided by the learned Special
Judge, vide impugned Order dated 05.08.2023, by observing as under :
“ 2. Most of the documents asked for, were supplied by the
prosecution to all the accused persons including accused
Devangana Kalita during the entire process of scrutiny
u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. In fact, vide order dated 05.04.2023, the
aspect of Section 207 Cr.P.C of all other 17 charge
sheeted accused persons was decided. The said order
passed, in detail, contained various directions for supply
of various documents like Whatsapp group of DPSG, JCC
group, MSJ, CAB etc. and the same were ordered to be
supplied to all the accused persons including applicant/
accused Devangana Kalita. In pursuance to the said
order, the compliance has also been done.

4.4 Ld. Special Public Prosecutor had submitted that in
the list of documents titled as Mark A & C, documents
which are not supplied are CCTV footages, which are
relevant for investigation of other cases of riots of North
East, Delhi, and where investigation/further investigation
is still going on and accused are still being apprehended.
Therefore, copies of those footage cannot be supplied to
the accused/applicant. It is stated by Ld. Special Public
Prosecutor that the relevant CCTV footage have already
been filed along with charge-sheet and supplied to the
accused persons.
4.5 Ld. counsel for the accused had submitted that they
must be supplied with all the footages.
4.6 The present case is one of the conspiracy and UAPA,
as regards the riots that occurred in North-East, Delhi,
and for those individual offences of riots, separate cases
of rioting have been registered in North East Delhi and
certain footages exist and used in those cases.
Ld. Prosecutor had submitted that relevant footages were
filed and supplied to the accused persons but all the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 18 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

footages sought for is under investigation in all other
individual cases of riots of North-East and those cannot
be supplied.
Considering the nature of present case and the fact that
investigation is going on in other individual cases of
riots, I agree with the submission of Ld. Special Public
Prosecutor that the entire footage for North-East Delhi,
which are relevant for individual cases and used and
supplied to accused therein, need not be supplied to the
accused/applicant in this case.”
65. In this context, it may be noted that during the pendency of the trial, at
the stage of compliance of S.207 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner had moved an
Application on 12.09.2023 raising an objection that the Respondent Agency
ought to reveal the status of the investigation, before the matter proceeds to
the stage of Arguments on Charge.
66. The Prosecution, in the Written Submissions, had mentioned that the
investigation qua the accused persons is complete, which meant that the
investigation is complete qua all the Accused persons as charge sheeted till
date.
67. The learned Special Judge in the impugned Order, noted that all the
documents except 43 had been supplied. Likewise, all the documents listed
in Mark B except 3 and 4 were also supplied, but documents at Serial No.3
and 4 could not be supplied as they were never seized by the Prosecution.
All documents in Mark C were supplied except at Sl. No.10, 11 and 12A.
These documents were CCTV footage which were claimed by the Petitioner
to be relevant. However, learned Special Prosecutor had explained that these
CCTV footages could not be supplied that further investigations were still
ongoing and certain Accused were still to be apprehended.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 19 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

68. The learned Special Judge noted that the entire footage of North East
Delhi Riots which were relevant to the Petitioner had already been supplied,
but only such communication, information, chats of Police official Groups,
WhatsApp Groups which were neither relied upon nor relevant had been
shared. It was observed that such documents may contain other sensitive
information/privileged communication which could not be disclosed.
Hence, the WhatsApp Group chats etc. pertaining to the police officials and
their activities which had not been relied upon were held to be not required
to be supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
69. It is evident that all the evidence against the Petitioner, relied by the
Prosecution, is already on record, along with the Charge-Sheets. The copies
of all the relied documents, in compliance of S.207 Cr.P.C. has already been
provided to the Petitioner. The documents like WhatsApp group of DPSG,
JCC group, MSJ, CAB etc. were ordered to be supplied to all the accused
persons including Applicant/accused, Devangana Kalita.
70. In the afore reproduced Order, the Ld. Special Judge has
comprehensively dealt with all the three lists detailing the documents to be
supplied. It was observed that for those individual offences of riots, separate
cases of rioting have been registered in North East Delhi and certain
footages exist and used in those cases. The requisite documents have all
been provided.
71. In so far as the documents pertaining to other accused, and the supply
of the Whatsapp Chats, are concerned, these are not relied upon against the
Petitioner, for which she has a right to seek the List/Inspection, a right which
has already been availed by the Petitioner. These documents have been
rightly denied in the Chargesheet.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 20 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00

72. The impugned Order dated 05.08.2023 disposing of the
Application under S.207 Cr.P.C., does not merit any interference, and is
accordingly, dismissed.
73. The pending Application(s) are disposed of, accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 05, 2026
va
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.)3373/2025 Page 21 of 21

DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
17:12:00