IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5152 of 2021 MANISH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.D. Singh Additional A.G. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Satna in Special Case No.34/2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of CCTV footage was rejected. 2. An FIR bearing Crime No. 644/2020 was registered at Police Station Maihar, District Satna (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8/20-B of the NDPS Act and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Charge-sheet has been filed in the case and during the pendency of petition charges have also been framed by the trial Court against which revision petition has been preferred.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 26.07.2020, on the basis of an information received by the police, a raid was conducted and from the possession of the petitioner, one Duster car bearing registration No. MP-19- CC-3142, one 312 bore katta, one live cartridge, 23 kg 500 grams of ganja and Rs. 11,00,000/- were allegedly recovered from the spot i.e. Rampur road towards Maihar.

4. The petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

before the learned trial Court seeking direction for production of CCTV footage installed at his residence to demonstrate that at the relevant time he was present at his home and was taken by police personnel for interrogation. The said application was rejected on 02.12.2020 holding that at the stage of framing of charge, only prosecution material can be considered and the accused may lead defence evidence at the appropriate stage.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CCTV footage is a material and relevant document necessary for a fair adjudication of the case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and was picked up from his residence. He argued that denial of production of such material evidence at the appropriate stage would prejudice the right of the accused to fair investigation and fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (SLP (Cri.) No.1477/2014) submitting that the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized the necessity of fair investigation, including production of call detail records where required.

6. On the other side, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568}, wherein it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, only the material produced by the prosecution is to be considered and the accused cannot rely upon defence material. The trial Court has rightly passed the order. The petitioner has remedy to produce his defence at the appropriate stage of trial.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material.

8. Section 91 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any document or thing if it considers that the production of such document or thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is wide and is intended to advance the cause of justice. The expression “necessary or desirable” confers judicial discretion upon the Court to secure relevant material.

9. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Nath Padhi (supra) is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to consider only the material produced by the prosecution and the accused has no right to produ