ORDER :

(Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.)

Accused No.20 in Spl.C.C.No.141/2021, on the file of Special court for trial of NIA Cases, (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), challenging the order of dismissing his application filed under section 91 of Cr.P.C., by the special court.

2. We have heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned special counsel for NIA.

3. The petitioner, in his application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. sought a direction to NIA to produce the voluntary statements of the accused persons and statements of 27 police personnel and 24 public witnesses recorded by the state police, the statements of protected witnesses recorded before 3rd November 2020, and video clipping shown to LW-52 while recording his statement. The case in which the petitioner is accused No.20 pertains to an incident of a large scale rioting and committing such other crimes in and around Kadugondanahalli Police Station on 11.08.2020. The genesis of the incident is said to be a derogatory remark made against Prophet Mohammed on the facebook by one Naveen. FIR in Crime No.229/2020 was initially registered at K.G.Halli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 353, 332, 333, 427, 436 read with Section 149 of IPC and section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The investigation was subsequently taken over by NIA and filed charge sheet.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that NIA has not produced the voluntary statements of the accused recorded by the state police, the statements of 27 police officers and 24 public witnesses recorded by the state police, statement of protected witnesses recorded prior to 03.11.2020 and video clipping shown to LW-52. All these materials are intentionally concealed to suppress the true nature and exact facts of the incident, and therefore it is necessary that the NIA is to be directed to produce them.

5. Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing on lines with the contents of the application, referred to a report submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor relating progress in the investigation to submit that in part II of the report, there is a reference to all the statements of the witnesses and the accused, as mentioned in section 91 application and suppression of the same by NIA has seriously prejudiced the interest of the petitioner. He submitted that the special court has erred in dismissing the application and therefore the writ petition is to be allowed.

6. But it is the argument of Sri P.Prasanna Kumar that after NIA took over investigation, it proceeded independently and filed the charge sheet based on materials collected by it. The allegations made by the petitioner in his application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. are false; NIA produced all the materials collected by it along with the charge sheet. Referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568], he argued that section 91 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by an accused for production of documents before framing of charges. If in this background, the special court dismissed the application there is no illegality in the impugned order and therefore writ petition deserves dismissal.

7. Keeping in view the points of arguments, we hold that though in part II of the report as to progress in the investigation submitted by the special public prosecutor, there is a reference to voluntary disclosures made by the accused persons, recording of the statements of 27 police officers an