Case Name: Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5380/2024
Date: Friday, Eighteenth Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty-Six
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Quorum: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand (Single Bench)
FACTS
Amar Singh was charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 365, 308 and 506 IPC. The entire incident was captured on CCTV, and the Investigating Officer filed the footage on a DVD and pen drive along with the charge-sheet. These two items were not supplied to the petitioner when he received the charge-sheet copy. His application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (Criminal Misc. Case No. 37/2023) was rejected on 31.07.2023, on the ground that he had made no such request when the charge-sheet copy was supplied. He challenged this order before the High Court. The petition was listed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), which required High Courts to decide long-pending matters, where interim orders had stalled trials for serious offences, expeditiously and without adjournments.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether an accused is entitled under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to a copy of electronic evidence filed with the charge-sheet.
- Whether the application can be rejected merely because no request was made when the charge-sheet was supplied.
- Whether supply of documents under Section 207 forms part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
- In what form electronic records must be supplied, and whether privacy concerns can limit this.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now 230 of BNSS, 2023) Requires the Magistrate to furnish the accused, without delay and free of cost, the police report, FIR, witness statements, Section 164 statements and any document forwarded under Section 173(5). Voluminous documents may be made available for inspection instead.
- Sections 173(5) and 173(6) Cr.P.C. (now 193 of BNSS, 2023) – Documents forwarded with the police report, and exclusion of parts of witness statements.
- Section 238 Cr.P.C. (now 261 of BNSS) – The Magistrate must satisfy himself that Section 207 has been complied with.
- Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950 – Right to a fair trial fall within its ambit.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER – Counsel argued that the DVD and pen drive are part of the charge-sheet and must be supplied to ensure a fair trial. The rejection of the Section 207 application because no request was made earlier was erroneous and not a valid ground. Reliance was placed on P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala [(2020) 9 SCC 161].
RESPONDENT – The Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. The order records no detailed submissions from the State.
ANALYSIS
The Court noted that the prosecution intends to rely on the CCTV footage, and that without it the petitioner cannot put up a proper defence. Section 207, it held, makes it mandatory for the prosecution to supply all material evidence it proposes to rely on, and the Magistrate or Trial Judge has a duty to ensure full compliance. The obligation therefore does not depend on the accused having asked for the material earlier.
The Court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which clarified that the stage under Sections 207/208 is pre-trial and essentially administrative, requiring the Magistrate to ensure compliance; Tarun Tyagi v. CBI [(2017) 4 SCC 490], which emphasized that Section 207 obliges the prosecution to furnish documents free of cost and without delay on the first date of the accused’s appearance, as Section 238 mandates the Magistrate’s satisfaction of such compliance; Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1], which held that furnishing documents is integral to the fair trial right under Article 21, that disclosure must be liberally construed to include any document the prosecution relies upon whether filed in court or not, and that though limited, this right forms the foundation of a fair trial; and Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711], which reiterated that an unambiguous statute must be given its plain and natural meaning. Applying these principles, the Court held that an “electronic record” produced with the police report and proposed to be used against the accused must be furnished under Section 207, its contents treated as a document and ordinarily supplied as a cloned copy to enable an effective defence, subject only to exceptions where privacy or identity of the complainant, witness, or victim is at stake, in which case inspection by the accused and his lawyer or expert may be permitted with appropriate safeguards balancing both sides’ interests.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court held that the prosecution and the Trial Court are bound to supply a cloned copy of the electronic evidence to the accused, as fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. The order dated 31.07.2023 was held unsustainable in law and was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court was directed to supply a cloned copy of the DVD and pen drive containing the CCTV footage to the petitioner forthwith. The stay application and all pending applications were disposed of. The order is marked “Reportable”.
CONCLUSION
The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that the duty under Section 207 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and rests on both the prosecution and the Trial Court. It extends to electronic records such as CCTV footage filed with the charge-sheet, and it is not lost because the accused did not ask for the material on receiving the charge-sheet. A cloned copy is the ordinary mode of supply, with inspection alone justified only to protect privacy or identity. The judgment treats disclosure of the prosecution’s material as part of the Article 21 right to a fair trial, which cannot be defeated on a technical ground.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- AASTHA KEDIA
Read the Judgment copy below : Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan
