The accused is entitled to all evidence collected during the course of investigation to build a proper defense, and the denial of necessary evidence to defend oneself would violate the principle of a fair trial.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27-09-2021 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases), Bangalore in Special C.C.No.152 of 2021, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

An untoward incident on 11-08-2020, takes place in D.J.Halli Police Station limits, which was on religious lines. A complaint came to be registered in Crime No.195 of 2020 against accused Nos.1 to 5 along with 300 persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506 r/w. Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC along with Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Distribution and Loss of Property Act, 1981. The police took up investigation on registration of the said complaint and thereafter, on 17-08-2020, added offences punishable under Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Number of accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody after which Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 21-09-2020, directs registration of a crime by the National Investigating Agency ('NIA' for short) at New Delhi Police Station on the same incident against the accused under the afore-quoted provisions. The NIA further conducted investigation after transfer of the crime from the State authorities in terms of the direction of Government and then filed a charge sheet. In the proceedings i.e., Special C.C.No.152 of 2021 after filing the charge sheet by the NIA, the petitioner/accused No.1 in the said case files an application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. for direction to the NIA to produce and furnish statement of charge sheeted witnesses as mentioned in a column therein. This was opposed by the NIA by filing its objections and considering the application and objections, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by accused No.1 for furnishing of documents i.e., statements of charge sheeted witnesses recorded by the Police. It is the rejection of the application that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Mr. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Mohammed Tahir, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that before the investigation was directed to be transferred to NIA, the Police had recorded several statements of witnesses. Those statements of witnesses do not form part of the charge sheet filed by the NIA. But, those statements are required for the defense of the accused in the trial as those statements would reveal innocence of accused No.1 or any other person alleged to be involved in the crime for the aforesaid offences on 11-08-2020. He would further contend that a fair trial requires that all documents necessary for the defense, unless they are barred by law, should be furnished to the accused.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. P.Prasanna Kumar, representing NIA would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that whatever document that formed part of the charge sheet, is given to the petitioner. Statements that are recorded by the Police prior to the investigation taken up by NIA are not relied on by NIA, they do not form part of the charge sheet and therefore, they cannot be furnished to the petitioner and would submit that it is a matter of trial and when the trial commences, the documents that are needed can be secured in a manner known to law. It is his further submission that there can be no fault found with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

6.