##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TH THURSDAY, THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1948 CRL.MC NO. 8995 OF 2026 CRIME NO.182/2024 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CMP 8/2026 IN SC NO.378 OF 2026 OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, KOTTARAKKARA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

RAJAN BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVAN, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, VENDAR, NEDUVATHOOR, AREEKAL, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN (SPECIAL SUB JAIL, KOTTARAKKARA), PIN - 691507 BY ADVS.

SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.M.S.ANEER SHRI.SARATH K.P.

SMT.DIPA V.

SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.

SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS SHRI.T.P.ARAVIND SHRI.EBEE ANTONY RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.

SRI.V.R.RAMLAL-PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 29^th day of October, 2026 This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) by the sole accused in S.C.No.378/2026 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara, challenging Annexure II order passed in CMP No.8/2026 in the said case. The accused has been charge- sheeted for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 64(1), 74, 75 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3(b) r/w 4, 7 r/w 8 and 5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.

2. The case of the petitioner in the above-said case can be epitomised as follows:

The petitioner is facing trial in S.C. No. 378/2026 pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara. In the said case, the victim has been examined in chief as PW1, and her cross-examination is yet to be conducted. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 8/2026, raising a grievance that the procedure prescribed under Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice regarding the supply of documents relied upon by the prosecution had not been duly complied with. By filing the said petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the prosecution to strictly comply with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice and furnish copies of all documents and materials relied upon by the prosecution. However, the learned Special Judge, while considering the said petition, declined to direct the prosecution to furnish copies of the CCTV footage and clips retrieved from the CCTV hard disk recovered from the place of occurrence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. I heard Sri.M.S.Aneer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.R.Ramlal, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. At the outset of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, although various contentions regarding the non-supply of several documents, including the FSL report, had been raised in the petition filed before the trial court, the petitioner was confining his relief to the supply of copies of the CCTV footage alone. This was because the petitioner had already applied for certified copies of the FSL report, which had not been supplied to him under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The learned counsel further submitted that an examination of the CCTV footage retrieved from the cameras installed at the accused's house was essential for effectively defending the case and formulating an appropriate defence. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of an opportunity to view the visuals contained in the CCTV footage, the accused would not be in a position to conduct an effective cross-examination. It was therefore contended that, unless copies of the CCTV footage were furnished to the accused, he would be seriously prejudiced in preparing his defence and in cross-examinin