Back
Allahabad High Court Rebukes Over Non-Compliance With BNSS Search Videography Rule
In a pointed rebuke to law enforcement authorities, the has flagged the persistent failure of the to comply with the statutory under . The observation came while the Court granted to four individuals accused in a case under the , registered at . The bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti expressed dismay that a simple procedural safeguard— of proceedings—remains “practically not implemented” despite a clear circular from the state’s .
Background: The Under Section 105 BNSS
Section 105 of the BNSS, which came into effect in , explicitly requires that every , including the signing of the seizure list by witnesses, be recorded through audio-video electronic means. The recording is to be immediately transmitted to the concerned Magistrate. This provision was designed to enhance transparency, prevent , and protect both the accused and the police from allegations of misconduct. The Uttar Pradesh DGP had issued a circular on , reiterating this obligation and directing all officers to comply. Despite this, the High Court noted that the requirement was “practically not implemented” in the field.
The Case at Hand
The applicants—Naseeb Ahmad and three others—sought under , arguing that they were falsely implicated in the cow slaughter case. They submitted that their names did not appear in the First Information Report (FIR) and surfaced only through statements of . They pointed out that a , Salman, had already been granted . The applicants claimed no prior and gave an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the plea but was unable to controvert these facts.
The Court, after considering the lack of criminal history, the willingness to cooperate, and the parity with the , granted to all four applicants. The protection is to operate until the next date of listing or submission of the , whichever is earlier. The applicants were directed to cooperate with the investigation, not influence witnesses, and appear whenever summoned. They were also restrained from leaving India without prior permission. The investigating agency was given liberty to seek vacation of the interim protection in case of default.
The Court’s Sharp Observations
Justice Rajeev Bharti did not mince words while addressing the police’s non-compliance with Section 105. The Court remarked:
“This Court cannot understand why compliance with such a simple statutory requirement is a difficulty for police authorities… In an age where is the norm, compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS should not be seen as burdensome or complex.”
The observation underscores a systemic failure: despite a clear and a DGP circular, officers in the field continue to disregard the videography requirement. The Court’s frustration suggests that such non-compliance undermines the very purpose of the BNSS reforms, which were intended to modernise criminal procedure and enhance evidentiary integrity.
Legal Analysis: Why Section 105 Compliance Matters
The serves multiple critical functions. First, it creates an objective record of the , reducing the scope for disputes over what was recovered and from whom. Second, it deters police from planting evidence or conducting illegal searches. Third, it provides the accused with a verifiable record to challenge any fabricated seizure. Fourth, it assists the Magistrate in assessing the legality of the search at the time of remand or charge.
The High Court’s insistence on compliance also aligns with constitutional protections under () and (). A search conducted without may be vulnerable to challenge, potentially leading to or even acquittal. For the legal community, this ruling serves as a reminder that procedural safeguards are not optional; they are integral to the fairness of the investigation.
Impact on Legal Practice and Policing
This judgment has significant implications for criminal practitioners and law enforcement. For defence lawyers, it provides a strong argument to challenge any where the prosecution fails to produce the mandated . The Court’s remarks can be cited to demand strict compliance and to seek if the recording is absent. For the police, the message is clear: continued non-compliance may result in adverse orders, including bail to accused persons who might otherwise have been denied, and possible disciplinary action.
Moreover, the ruling may prompt other high courts to take cognisance of similar non-compliance across states. The BNSS is still relatively new, and procedural audits by courts are essential to ensure its provisions are implemented in letter and spirit. The Allahabad High Court’s stance could catalyse a broader judicial push for technological accountability in criminal investigations.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s order in is not just about granting bail; it is a judicial admonition to a police force that has yet to adapt to modern statutory requirements. By highlighting the gap between the law on the books and the reality on the ground, the Court has reinforced the importance of procedural transparency. For legal professionals, this judgment is a useful tool to hold investigating agencies accountable and to safeguard the rights of the accused. The next time a is conducted without a camera rolling, the High Court’s words will be a ready rejoinder.
