Supply of electronic evidence may be restricted to court inspection to prevent prejudice to ongoing investigations.

Crime No. 517/2025 was registered at Police Station Amiliya, District Sidhi, against the petitioner and other co-accused for offences under Sections 190, 191(3), 61(2), 336(G), 322(B), 324(5) and 324(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Upon completion of investigation qua the petitioner and co-accused Pushpraj Patel, the police submitted the final report on 30.12.2025.

Although copies of the charge-sheet and relied-upon documents were supplied in compliance with Section 230 of the BNSS, the CCTV footage and photographs of the place of occurrence—despite being specifically mentioned in the list of relied documents—were not furnished.

The Trial Court, by order dated 11.05.2026 in Sessions Trial No. 16/2026, dismissed the application, holding that other accused persons were still absconding and supply of the CCTV footage and photographs might prejudice the investigation against them; it, however, permitted the petitioner to inspect the material before the Court after obtaining permission.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the statutory right of an accused under Section 230 of the BNSS to receive copies of all documents and electronic records relied upon by the prosecution is absolute, or whether the Trial Court may legitimately restrict such supply to supervised inspection where other accused persons are absconding.

2. Whether the Trial Court's order dated 11.05.2026, denying copies but permitting inspection of the CCTV footage and photographs, suffered from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which casts an obligation upon the prosecution/investigating agency to furnish to the accused copies of the police report and all documents, including electronic records, relied upon therein; however, the Court qualified this mandate by holding that such right "is not absolute in every factual situation," and that a Trial Court is competent to adopt a balanced procedure consistent with the principles of fair trial where unrestricted supply of electronic evidence may adversely affect the investigation or facilitate absconding accused persons.

Section 528 of the BNSS, holding that inherent jurisdiction is intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, and is "not meant to substitute the discretionary orders of the Trial Court merely because another view is possible".

The Court held that although Section 230 of the BNSS obligates the prosecution to supply relied-upon material, that right must yield to a calibrated procedure where compelling circumstances exist. In the instant case, the Trial Court had recorded specific reasons—that several accused persons were still absconding and that the CCTV footage constituted relevant evidence against them—such that unrestricted circulation of the electronic evidence could frustrate the prosecution and the ongoing investigation.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not been denied access altogether; the Trial Court had permitted inspection of the footage and photographs before the Court, through counsel, upon obtaining permission, thereby adequately protecting the petitioner's right to know the material relied upon against him while simultaneously safeguarding the interest of justice.

The Court reasoned that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 does not permit substitution of a Trial Court's discretionary order merely because an alternative view is possible, and since the impugned order reflected a "judicious exercise of discretion" free of jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality, no interference was warranted.

The petition was dismissed. However, the Court directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to inspect the CCTV footage and photographs forming part of the charge-sheet before the Trial Court, through counsel, after obtaining appropriate permission, and further directed the Trial Court to facilitate such inspection within a reasonable time.