[2026:RJ-JD:9689]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7905/2025 Kishan Agarwal S/o Shri Premchand Ji Gupta, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 20 Raghuvihar, Maharani Farm, Jaipur (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Sankhala S/o Kalulal Shankhla, R/

o Mangalwad Choraha, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preeti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Harishchandra Singh, Deputy SP P.S ACB Chittorgarh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

19/02/2026 The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Court), Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 02/2025, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 207(v) read with Section 173(5)(1) of Cr.P.C., and another application read with Section 91 came to be rejected.

The present petition arises from a criminal proceeding wherein the petitioner is facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused-petitioner filed an application under Section 207(v) read with Section 173(5)(1) of Cr.P.C., seeking a cloned copy of the purported bribe from the original recording device and the CD containing the alleged evidence, alleging that the accused has been provided incomplete recording;

neither the CD is a cloned copy nor the hash value has been provided. Prayer for production of the original recording device has also been made. Thereafter, another application was filed under the same sections read with Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking fard transcript of the amount seized, photographs and videography of the entire incident, and to give complete recording of all the conversations recorded as per the charge-sheet.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story, three separate conversations of demand of bribe were alleged to be recorded by them on the digital voice recorder; however, no such digital voice recorder or any original recording device has been filed along with the charge-sheet, nor any cloned copy of the same containing hash value has been provided. It is contended that a dubbed CD and transcript have been provided, which are manipulated and have been supplied to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is required to be supplied the cloned copy of the original media device in which the data was stored containing hash value, so that the authenticity of the said record is known to the petitioner and he can validly put forth his defence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request made by the petitioner is essential for a fair trial, as the CD supplied does not accurately reflect the original recording. Despite these submissions and reliance on relevant legal precedents, the learned trial court rejected the petitioner’s application vide its impugned order dated 01.09.2025.

The petitioner contended that the learned trial Court committed a grave error of law and fact in summarily rejecting the applications for production of the original recording device, a cloned copy of the conversations recorded from the original device having the alleged evidence, with the hash value of the electronic record relied upon by the prosecution. It is submitted that such rejection runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161, as well as the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this High Court in Jaideep Mittal v. State of Rajasthan (SB. CRLMP No. 7024/2022) and Ganpat Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (SB.

CRLRP No. 1675/2025).

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. It was contended that the petitioner has already been supplied with all documents relied upon by the pr