2026 Supreme(Del) 462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Devangana Kalita, D/o Dr. Hem Chandra Kalita - Petitioner
Versus 
State of Delhi NCT The SHO PS Crime Branch. – Respondent
W.P. (CRL.) 925 of 2025, CRL.M.A.8681 of 2025 (stay)
Decided On : 05-06-2026

The accused has a constitutional right to inspect all materials collected by the investigation, including non-relied documents, at the charging stage to ensure a fair trial and prevent prejudice, as part of the state's obligation to maintain transparency in criminal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 91 and 207 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Sections 528 and 529 - Right to fair trial - Accused entitlement to inspect un-relied documents stored in institutional custody - The right to a fair trial includes the obligation of the state/prosecution to ensure transparency and non-prejudicial treatment of the accused - Access to documents not relied upon by the prosecution is an inalienable attribute of the right to fair trial guaranteed under the constitution - Such rights are not subject to the classification of the nature of the offence - Denial of inspection of material held in custody impedes the ability of the accused to mount an effective defense and may lead to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 4, 63, 77, 78)

(B) Stage of framing charges - Scope of judicial intervention - A balance must be struck between the competing interests of the prosecution and the defense - While judicial proceedings at the charge stage should not descend into a full-scale trial, the court cannot ignore its duty to prevent abuse of process - If the accused seeks access to material in custody to test the prosecution case, the court must ensure such access is granted to fulfill constitutional safeguards. (Paras 56, 61, 64)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to inspect materials, including electronic records, stored in the custody of the investigative agency which were not included in the final chargesheet. The court of first instance denied the application on the grounds that the proceedings were at the stage of framing charges and that the material was not relied upon by the state. The petitioner challenged this order, asserting that such denial violated the principles of natural justice and fair trial.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial necessitates that the accused has access to all pertinent evidence, regardless of whether the investigative agency chooses to rely on it. Denying the inspection of such material, which is held by the state, places the accused at a significant disadvantage and hinders the exercise of their legal rights. The court of first instance erred in strictly interpreting the law in a manner that disregarded the broader requirements of transparency and fairness.

Issues: The primary issue was whether an accused is entitled to physically inspect all documents and materials collected during an investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of framing charges, and whether such inspection undermines the nature of preliminary judicial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and comply with constitutional mandates, the accused must be permitted to inspect un-relied material in the custody of the investigating authorities. This right is fundamental to ensuring the accused is not prejudiced and can effectively participate in the proceedings, ensuring justice is not only done but seen to be done.

Result: Petition allowed. The impugned order is set aside and inspection of the stored materials is granted.