JUDGMENT

Crl.M.A. 656/2019 in BAIL APPLN.3003/2018

1. In this Bail Application the petitioner has preferred the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for placing on record additional documents some of which do not form part of charge-sheet but were provided to the petitioner on his application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court. The documents primarily sought to be placed and relied upon vide this application which are not part of the chargesheet are the messages generated from the clone of the mobile phones deposited with the FSL, clone copy of which the petitioner has received pursuant to the order of the learned Trial Court on an application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased was under depression due to her hectic work life style which fact was acknowledged by her mother and was undergoing treatment from a Doctor in Chandigarh. Further the allegations of cruelty are baseless. There was no demand of dowry ever and quarrels between the spouses were also due to provocation. The petitioner seeks to place on record some of the copies of the whatsapp transcriptions between R.S. Batra and the petitioner, Nillum Batra and the petitioner and Karan Batra and the petitioner and relevant extracts of conversation between the deceased and the petitioner retrieved from his mobile phone. Besides these documents which were not part of charge-sheet, petitioner has also sought to place reliance on documents which form part of charge-sheet like copy of the post-mortem report, copies of the statements and supplementary statements of R.S. Batra and copy of the whatsapp exchanged between Seema Malik and the deceased as relied by the prosecution in the charge-sheet.

2. When this application came up on 14th January, 2019 this Court issued notice to the learned Standing Counsel, time to file reply within one week was granted and the bail application was listed on 1st February, 2019.

3. On 1st February learned Standing Counsel objected that the petitioner has not placed on record the complete material received by him as the clone copy pursuant to the orders dated 15th September, 2018 and 3rd November, 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus sought leave to place on record the entire transcript.

4. The second objection of the Standing Counsel was that he was not certain whether transcripts so placed on record were true and correct copies from the clone copies received from the FSL and that this fact could not be ascertained on the basis of affidavit of the petitioner or his parokar. Learned Standing counsel also stated that he would require to file before this Court transcripts of the clone not only which have been given to the petitioner but also of the other mobile phones, I-Pad and laptop recovered and seized. Therefore to allay any apprehension of the learned Standing Counsel for the State as to whether the material placed on record was the transcript of the clone copies received from FSL, Director FSL was directed to provide the clone copies of hard-disk of all the phones, I-Pad, laptops recovered and seized and deposited with the FSL to the investigating officer within two weeks whereafter the investigating officer was to find out whether the transcript filed by the petitioner before this Court was the same or not and in case the same is not correct, the corrected copy of the same was directed to be filed along with the transcript of further additional materials so received from the clone copies received from the FSL.

5. On 28th February, 2019 learned Standing Counsel stated that Para 4 and 5 of the earlier order could not be complied with because the FSL could not retrieve the material from the I-Pad and the I-Phone of the deceased for want of password. He further stated that he needed two months time to retrieve the password and open I-Pad and I-Phone of the deceased whereafter only analysis can be don