Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 464

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 Through The SHO, PS Crime Branch. .....Respondent
W.P. (CRL.)3373 of 2023, CRL.M.A.31320 of 2023, CRL.M.A.31322 of 2023 and CRL.M.A.4960 of 2023
Decided On : 05-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Chaitanya Sundriyal, Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhwat, Mr. Siddharth Kaushal, Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Prasad and Mr. Madhukar Pandey, SPP alongwith Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Mr. Dhruv Pande, Mr. Saravjeet Singh, Mr. Harshil Jain Advocates.

The accused has a statutory right to be furnished with all documents relied upon by the prosecution to ensure a fair trial. However, there is no absolute right to obtain copies of unrelied-upon seized evidence, which is limited to the right of inspection.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Section 207 - Supply of copies of documents - Scope and extent - Accused held entitled to copies of police report, initial information report, statements, and documents relied upon by the prosecution - For documents produced by the investigating agency but not relied upon, the accused may request for inspection - Prosecution cannot suppress relevant evidence, but is not obligated to furnish unrestrained copies of all evidence that does not form the basis of the report, especially if it involves sensitive information or materials concerning ongoing investigations. (Paras 49, 50, 53, 60, 71)

(B) Constitution - Article 21 - Fair trial - Principles of fair disclosure and duty of prosecution to provide documents - Constitutional mandate regarding fair trial includes the right of the accused to access material that has a bearing on the prosecution case or is crucial for the defense. (Paras 29, 30, 56, 58)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order denying the request under the relevant criminal procedure code for the supply of comprehensive electronic evidence, including forensic copies of digital communications and video footage, arguing such material was essential for mounting a defense before the framing of charges. The prosecution contended that such documents were not relied upon to support the charges and their disclosure could compromise the privacy of individuals and ongoing investigations.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that all documents relied upon by the prosecution had been supplied. Regarding unrelied documents, the court held that while the accused has a right to inspect such material as part of a fair trial, there is no statutory obligation to supply unrestricted copies of all seized electronic records, particularly those containing sensitive information or material relevant to other separate pending cases.

Issues: Whether the accused is entitled to the supply of every document or part of an electronic record seized during an investigation, regardless of whether the prosecution intends to rely on it, at the stage of framing charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory obligation under the procedure code mandates the supply of documents relied upon by the prosecution to ensure a fair trial; however, this does not extend to an absolute right to receive copies of all seized material, provided that the accused is given adequate access for inspection of relevant unrelied evidence to ensure justice.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of case and procedural filings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. respondent and special court stance on documentation (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
3. petitioner's contentions on fair trial and disclosure (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. respondent's reply regarding prosecution strategy (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
5. obligation to supply documents under section 207 cr.p.c. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
6. validation of trial court refusal for unrelied documents (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 528/529 of BNSS, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to challenge the Order dated 05.08.2023, whereby the Application under S.207 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner has been decided.

2. The Petitioner stated that she was a law abiding citizen with deep roots in the Society. She was enrolled as a student at Jawahar Lal Nehru University and is pursuing PhD in Women’s Studies at the Centre for Women’s Studies. Her contributions to peaceful campaigns for equal rights of the marginalized has been recognized, despite her young age. The Petitioner has participated in Conferences and Seminars and published various Articles.

3. An FIR No.59/2020, P.S. Crime Branch was registered on the Complaint of SI Arvind Kumar, Crime Branch, New Delhi for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B IPC, The allegations made were that a conspiracy was hatched by a student of JNU along with his associates, for the riots in Delhi between 23.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. While the Petitioner was in Judicial Custody in FIR No.50/2020, she was produced before the Duty Magistrate on 06.06.2020 and was sent to Police Custody for two days in the present FIR No.59/2020, P.S. Crime Branch.

4. An Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 09.07.2020 on behalf of the Petitioner seeking the monitoring of investigations in the underlying FIR, qua other offences leading to/committed during the period of communal violence that took place in February, 2020. The Petitioner placed on record, a wide gamut of material easily available in the public domain which points to the offences committed by third parties, instigation and incendiary speeches by pro-CAA demonstrators and reluctance of the Investigating Agency to probe such material. The attention was also brought of the learned Trial Court to the material which was available with the Respondent Agency, but had not been brought before the Court. The Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Appellant, was dismissed on 14.07.2020.

5. On 12.11.2020, the Petitioner filed an Application seeking regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed vide Order dated 28.01.2021. The Bail was eventually granted by this Court on 15.06.2021. The Respondent Agency filed SLP (CRL.) No.4289/2021 to challenge the Order of this Court granting Bail, but the Supreme Court vide Order dated 02.05.2023 did not interfere with the Order of this Court.

6. The Chargesheet was filed on 16.09.2020. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C seeking inter alia, supply of hard copy of the Main Chargesheet. The Application was disposed of vide Order dated 21.10.2020 by the learned Special Judge, with the direction to supply hard copy of the 18,000 page Chargesheet to all the Accused.

7. On 22.11.2020, the First Supplementary Chargesheet in FIR No.59/2020 was filed. The Second Supplementary Chargesheet was filed on 24.02.2021.

8. The Petitioner filed the first Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C on 08.04.2021 whereby the Petitioner sought a set of electronic evidence that was relied upon by the Respondent Agency, in the main Chargesheet and in the First Supplementary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 464

The accused has a statutory right to be furnished with all documents relied upon by the prosecution to ensure a fair trial. However, there is no absolute right to obtain copies of unrelied-upon seized evidence, which is limited to the right of inspection.

Cases Referred (5)