IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 10 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35800 of 2025 MANISH PACHORI Versus SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Appearance:

Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sunshil Chandra Chaturvedi and Shri Ajeet Sudele - Advocate for the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta).

ORDER Per.Justice Anil Verma

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of BNSS of

2023 challenging the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhind whereby, the trial court has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 207(5) read with Section 173(5)

(A) of the Cr.P.C and Section 230(5) read with section 193(6) of the BNSS 2023.

2. The instant petition arises from the criminal proceedings wherein, the petitioner who is facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sought production of the original recording device, a cloned copy of the CD containing the alleged evidence and the Hash Value of the purported bribe demand. It is also contended that the request made by the petitioner is crucial for fair and just trial as the same has been predicated upon and apprehension that the supplied CD might not be an accurate reflection of the original recording.

3. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 207(5) read with Section 173(5) (A) of the Cr.P.C and Section 230(5) read with section 193(6) of the BNSS 2023. Despite the petitioner's submission and the reliance on relevant legal precedents, the learned trial court, in its impugned order dated 14.07.2025 has rejected his application. This perfunctory disposition, devoid of reasons analysis, constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice and and necessitates the intervention of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and fact in summarily rejecting the application for the production of the original recording device i.e. a cloned copy of the CD containing the alleged evidence, and the Hash Value of the purported bribe demand. This rejection is contrary to the established legal principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Gopal Krishnan Vs. Sate of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 which mandates the disclosure of all evidence to the accused for a fair trial, constitutes a serious violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. Apart from the above, the trial court has failed to appreciate significance of this evidence. It is contended that the copy supplied by the prosecution along with the charge sheet to the petitioner is only a dubbed copy and not a cloned copy, thereby denying the rights of the petitioner-accused for obtaining a copy of the complete conversation. For this purpose, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Gopal Krishnan (Supra), order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramsuhawan Anuragi Vs. The State of M.P dated 19th December, 2023 in M.Cr.C.No.54973 of 2023 and the judgment, order of the Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Jaideep Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan on 07.01.2025 in Cr.Misc. (Petition) No.7024 of 2022 and order dated 13.09.2023 in the case of Anil Saraswat Vs.

State of Rajasthan in Cr.Misc. (Pet.) No.798 of 2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and prays for it's rejection by supporting the impugned order passed by the trial court.

6. Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the entire record with due care.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of P.Gopal Krishnan (Supra) where, the Apex Court was deliberating upon interplay between two fundamental rights i.e. right to fair trial and right to privacy and concluded that ordinarily accused must be giv