Annexing Case Diary Extracts to Bail Plea Before Charge-Sheet Not Ground for Rejection In Limine: Allahabad High Court - 2025-06-04

Annexing Case Diary Extracts to Bail Plea Before Charge-Sheet No Bar to Hearing, Rules Allahabad High Court

Lucknow Bench: Copies Align with Natural Justice and Accused's Right to Fair Hearing

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench - In a significant ruling concerning an accused person's right to access investigation material at the bail stage, the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has held that the practice of annexing extracts from the case diary to a bail application, even before the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, does not constitute a valid ground for rejecting the application outright.

The decision was delivered by Hon'ble Justice SubhashVidyarthi in the case of Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3971 of 2025).

Background of the Case

The applicant, Vipin Tiwari, was seeking bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2024 registered under various sections of the newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The incident involved a fatal road collision alleged to have been deliberate due to an old property dispute, resulting in the death of the informant's relative.

During the hearing, the learned counsel for the informant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the bail application. The objection was based on the fact that copies of some extracts of the case diary had been annexed with the bail application, arguing that this indicated the applicant's ability to influence the ongoing investigation.

Court's Analysis on Case Diary Access

Justice Vidyarthi meticulously examined the relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically Section 192 (equivalent to Section 172 CrPC) and Section 230 (equivalent to Section 207 CrPC).

Section 192 BNSS states that the accused or their agents are generally not entitled to call for or see the case diary. Conversely, Section 230 BNSS mandates that, upon the appearance of the accused, the Magistrate shall furnish them with copies of various documents, including the police report, witness statements recorded under Section 180(3), confessions, and relevant extracts forwarded with the police report.

The Court noted the apparent conflict between these two provisions regarding the supply of prosecution papers to the accused. Applying the principle of statutory interpretation, the Court held that where there is a conflict between two provisions, the one beneficial to the accused should be given precedence, especially when it aligns with the principles of natural justice.

"It is a basic principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing, which would including providing him copies of the material against him," the judgment stated, adding that Section 230 BNSS is in consonance with this principle and would prevail over Section 192 BNSS in case of conflict.

The Court also reviewed Supreme Court judgments in Sidharth , Balakram , and P. Chidambaram , which restricted accused access to case diaries, but noted that these judgments did not appear to have considered the implications of the corresponding CrPC Section 207 (now Section 230 BNSS). The Court also distinguished directions in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (related to Section 164 statements in rape cases) and A v. State of U.P. (which stated the right to a copy arises after cognizance, based on peculiar facts).

Emphasizing the State's duty to ensure justice, the Court highlighted that an innocent person arrested and jailed pending investigation is already 'condemned' as their liberty and reputation are affected. Denying access to material would prevent such a person from presenting a properly prepared bail application.

Referring to Regulation 107 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which mandates investigating officers to find the truth and give the accused an opportunity to produce evidence, the Court reasoned that providing copies of material the accused is eventually entitled to under Section 230 BNSS should not penalize their bail plea.

Justice Vidyarthi also observed the practical reality that photocopies of case diary extracts are commonly annexed to bail applications, stating it "has become a norm and not annexing the same is an exception." The Court concluded that an accused person in custody cannot be blamed for someone else procuring these documents for their benefit.

Rejection of Preliminary Objection

Based on this detailed analysis, the Court rejected the informant's preliminary objection, deeming it without force.

Consideration of Bail Merits

Moving to the merits of the bail application, the Court considered the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan , including the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of flight, impact on witnesses, and tampering with evidence.

The Court noted several crucial aspects in favour of the applicant: * The FIR was lodged 37 hours after the incident. * There is a history of old animosity and property dispute between the families. * The registration number or occupants of the offending Bolero car were not identified even through CCTV footage analysis. * The applicant was not definitively connected with the Bolero vehicle. * Critically, the applicant's call detail records (CDRs) and a photograph taken at the photo affidavit centre of the High Court confirmed his presence in the High Court premises in Lucknow around the time the incident occurred in Pratapgarh, located approximately 175 km away. * A co-accused person, Sachin Mishra , had already been granted bail by the same Court.

The Court also noted that the informant's husband is also accused in another case under Section 307 IPC filed by the applicant's side, suggesting that the informant's family members also do not have "clean antecedents."

Bail Granted

Considering the cumulative facts, particularly the applicant's documented presence far away from the scene at the time of the incident and the co-accused being granted bail, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail.

Vipin Tiwari was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate/Court, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, and appearing on all trial dates.

Judicial Efficiency Concerns

In concluding remarks, Justice Vidyarthi expressed concern over the prolonged nature of the bail hearing caused by the informant's counsel's elaborate submissions, stating that while counsel must advocate for their client, they are also officers of the Court responsible for cooperating in the expeditious dispensation of justice. The Court clarified that its observations in the order were necessitated by the detailed arguments presented and would not affect the trial's merits.

The judgment serves as an important reminder regarding the rights of an accused person even at the pre-charge-sheet stage, particularly when seeking bail, and clarifies that technical objections regarding access to investigation material should not impede the examination of a bail plea on its substantive merits.