1. Petition challenging trial court's refusal to conduct in-camera trial for murder case to prevent witness identification via media exposure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Mohammed J I – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8147 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.A. Haris, M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny, Ravi Krishnan
For the Respondents: C. Rasheed, Devika K.R., K.S. Arun Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.A. Haris, M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny, Ravi Krishnan
For the Respondents: C. Rasheed, Devika K.R., K.S. Arun Kumar
Open-court proceedings are the general rule in criminal trials. A request for an in-camera trial to prevent witness identification via media is not granted if the court can ensure fairness through restrictions on photography and videography within the courtroom.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - In-Camera Trial - Discretion of Court - Open-court proceedings are the general rule to ensure transparency and public confidence; in-camera trials are exceptions to be exercised by the presiding officer in the interest of fair administration of justice. (Para 10, 11)
(B) Witness Identification - Apprehension of influence via media - Mere apprehension that photographs or videos might influence witness identification does not automatically warrant an in-camera trial if adequate security and restrictions on photography can be implemented. (Para 12, 15)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to have the trial conducted in-camera to prevent witness identification through external media.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought in-camera trial to prevent prior exposure of witnesses; prosecution argued open court is the rule and adequate arrangements exist. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Apprehension concerning identification through media exposure does not warrant in-camera trial; court has discretion to restrict access under specific circumstances. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Open-court proceedings are the rule; in-camera trial is an exception requiring threat to fair administration of justice beyond identification concerns. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
5. Petition dismissed; trial court directed to prohibit photography/videography of accused and consider restricting public access during eyewitness examination. (Para 15 )
6. What is the general rule regarding the conduct of criminal trials under Section 366 BNSS?
Criminal proceedings must ordinarily be conducted in open court where the public has general access, with in-camera trials being a narrow exception. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Under what circumstances can a court order an in-camera trial or restrict public access?
The presiding judge may restrict access if necessary for the fair and proper administration of justice, not merely due to concerns about witness identification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. What factors did the court consider in rejecting the application for an in-camera trial?
The court noted no law-and-order problem existed, the prosecution had made security arrangements, and concerns were limited to potential identification through media. (Para 12 , 13 )
C.S.DIAS, J.
Crl. M.C.No. 8147 of 2026
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2026
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 12, 14 and 15 in S.C. No. 1068 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Session, Ernakulam ('Trial Court', for short), arising from Crime No. 1548 of 2018 registered by the Ernakulam Central Police Station, alleging that the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The concise prosecution case is that, on 02.07.2018, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, committed the murder of a student of Maharaja's College, Ernakulam.
3. It is the petitioners' case that, the above case is scheduled for trial from 15.10.2026 to 12.11.2026. The incident giving rise to the crime has received extensive public and media attention. No test identification parade was conducted during the investigation and that the witnesses have not identified the accused persons. Consequently, the identification of the accused by the witnesses is to be tested during the trial. In the above background, the petitioners apprehend that their prior exposure to the witnesses, even through photographs or video recordings, may compromise the fairness and reliability of the identification process. The petitioners contend that several attempts were made to photograph and video-record the accused persons when they appeared before the Trial Court, to expose such material to the witnesses. Accordingly, the petitioners moved an application before the Trial Court, to conduct the trial 'in-camera', particularly the examination of the eye-witnesses, and appropriate restrictions be imposed on entry of the general public into the courtroom and on photography/videography of the trial. Even on ordinary days, the courtroom is congested. Unrestricted entry to students, political workers, public representatives, media persons, and others would cause considerable crowding and may impede the expeditious examination of witnesses within the limited period fixed for the trial. The prosecution opposed the application, inter alia, contending that criminal proceedings are ordinarily required to be conducted in open court. Consequently, by the impugned Annexure A4 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application on the finding that there was no material to establish that an open-court trial would prejudice the fair and proper administration of justice.
4. The petitioners have contended in this petition that the impugned order is erroneous. The petitioners main concern is regarding the preservation of the testimony of the witnesses and the identification evidence.
The petitioners have relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another [1966 SCC OnLine SC 10] and that of this Court in Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 559], to canvass the position that the Court has the power to conduct ‘in-camera’ proceedings.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2nd respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since no test identification parade was conducted, the petitioners have a legitimate apprehension in their mind that if the witnesses are shown the photographs or video recordings of the accused persons, they will identify the accused persons with reference to such material. It was further submitted that the case is likely to receive extensive and continuous media coverage. The presence of prosecution witnesses in the court premises, while another witness is being examined, may also afford a subsequent witness an opportunity to derive information regarding the incident and the identity of the accused persons standing in the dock.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor and the
