Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Mandatory Recording of Search and Seizure via Audio-Video Means - Section 105 of BNSS explicitly mandates that searches, seizures, and related proceedings must be recorded through audio-video electronic means. This requirement aims to ensure transparency, prevent false implications, and maintain the integrity of evidence ["Rajesh Kumar - Patna"], ["Pravendra Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268"].
Non-Compliance and Legal Consequences - Several cases highlight violations of Section 105, such as police failing to record videography during recovery or not uploading recordings on official portals. Such non-compliance can lead to disciplinary proceedings, render evidence inadmissible, and may result in the quashing of FIRs or case dismissals ["Rajesh Kumar - Patna"], ["Pravendra Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268"], ["Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar - Patna"].
Video Recording as a Procedural Safeguard - Recording search and seizure through electronic means is considered a mandatory procedural safeguard to prevent false implications and ensure the authenticity of recovered evidence. Courts have emphasized that failure to record such proceedings violates statutory mandates and affects the legality of searches ["Rajesh Kumar - Patna"], ["Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Rajesh Kumar - Patna"].
Use of Video Conferencing for Evidence - Section 530 of BNSS and related rules authorize and emphasize the use of electronic communication and video conferencing for recording evidence, including witness statements and trial proceedings, especially during circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. This aligns with the broader objective of conducting proceedings in electronic mode to facilitate justice ["DEEPCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["G. Shrilakshmi VS Anirudh Ramkumar - Madras"], ["MD SADDAM vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - Gauhati"], ["G. Shrilakshmi VS Anirudh Ramkumar - Madras"].
Impact on Bail and Trial Proceedings - Non-compliance with the mandatory video recording provisions can influence bail decisions and trial procedures. Courts have considered the absence of proper recording as a violation of statutory requirements, affecting the legality of evidence and proceedings ["Rajesh Kumar - Patna"], ["Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar - Patna"], ["DEEPCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["G. Shrilakshmi VS Anirudh Ramkumar - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The provided sources consistently establish that under Section 105 of BNSS, recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means is a mandatory requirement. Failure to comply with this statutory mandate can have serious legal repercussions, including evidence inadmissibility, disciplinary actions, and case quashment. Moreover, the BNSS and related rules explicitly endorse the use of electronic and video conferencing methods for evidence collection and proceedings, reinforcing procedural safeguards and transparency in criminal justice processes. Therefore, compliance with the mandatory video recording of search recovery is crucial and non-negotiable under BNSS.References:["Rajesh Kumar - Patna"]["Pravendra Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]["Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268"]["Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar - Patna"]
In the realm of criminal investigations in India, transparency is paramount, especially during searches and seizures. A common query arises: Is video recording mandatory in chance recovery under BNSS? Chance recoveries—unexpected discoveries of evidence or contraband—often spark debates on procedural safeguards. With the advent of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the CrPC, understanding these mandates is crucial for police officers, accused persons, and legal practitioners alike.
This post delves into Section 105 of the BNSS, its application to chance recoveries, supporting judicial insights, and practical recommendations. Note: This is general information based on legal provisions and precedents; consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
Under Section 105 of the BNSS, audio-video electronic recording is mandatory for the process of conducting a search of a place or person or taking possession of any property, article, or thing. This includes preparation of the seizure list and witness signatures. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268 The provision explicitly states: The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268
This applies to chance recoveries as they typically involve search or seizure procedures, ensuring the entire process—from discovery to documentation—is captured for accountability. Non-compliance can undermine the chain of custody, invite tampering allegations, and weaken prosecution cases. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268
Section 105 BNSS broadens safeguards introduced in the CrPC era, mandating videography to present the unvarnished truth during trials. In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631 It covers any search or seizure, irrespective of planning, making it obligatory for chance discoveries where police take possession of evidence. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268
In practice, this means officers must videograph the entire sequence: locating the item, witnesses' presence, seizure, weighing/measuring (if applicable), and list preparation. The recording must be forwarded promptly to a Magistrate, preserving integrity. Failure here may lead to evidentiary challenges, as courts emphasize procedural compliance for legitimacy. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268
Chance recoveries, often in narcotics or contraband cases, fall under this umbrella since they entail taking possession of any property or evidence. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268 The provision deters tampering and bolsters credibility, much like in NDPS cases where videography ensures fairness. In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631
Courts have upheld similar mandates, noting that recoveries are the heart and soul of the prosecution. In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631 For instance, in NDPS contexts, non-compliance with recording invites scrutiny, though Section 50 (personal search notice) may not apply to chance recoveries. JAGDISH SINGH @ THANDU VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 1851PRAKASH SINGH VS STATE - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2402 One ruling clarified: In case of chance recovery, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. JAGDISH SINGH @ THANDU VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 1851 Yet, general videography under BNSS fills this gap universally. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268
While BNSS Section 105 is general, it aligns seamlessly with NDPS Act requirements for narcotic recoveries. NDPS cases frequently highlight discrepancies in seizure lists and witness issues, reinforcing videography's role. In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631 In chance NDPS recoveries, Section 50 isn't triggered, but overall procedural videography remains vital, as non-joining of public witnesses doesn't vitiate trials if raiding party testimony is reliable. PRAKASH SINGH VS STATE - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2402
Precedents stress: The non-joining of public witnesses does not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses if their evidence is found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable. PRAKASH SINGH VS STATE - 2015 Supreme(Del) 2402 BNSS elevates this by mandating recordings, reducing reliance on oral testimony alone. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268
Other contexts, like proclaimed offender proceedings under CrPC Sections 82/83 (analogous to BNSS), recommend mandatory photography and video recording for execution reports to inspire confidence. Sunil Tyagi VS Govt Of NCT Of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2113Sunil Tyagi VS Govt of NCT of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 831 This underscores a broader judicial push for technology in investigations.
No explicit exceptions exist for chance vs. planned recoveries under BNSS Section 105; the duty triggers on any search or possession-taking. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268 However, discretionary videography applies elsewhere, e.g., witness statements under BNSS (discretion with IO, but requestable). P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(AP) 982
In Atrocities Act cases, video recording is mandatory for proceedings if requested. Hema Suresh Ahuja VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 598 Video conferencing for witnesses is permissible for accessibility, as upheld in challenges to WhatsApp-based recordings. Kulvir Ram @ Mati VS State of Punjab - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1240 Conversely, electronic evidence like videos requires Section 65B certificates for admissibility. Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Kristan Auto - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 2226
Courts caution against blanket court recording without consent. Vikram Bakshi VS State - 2017 Supreme(Del) 2332 Thus, while BNSS mandates field procedures, judicial oversight remains balanced.
To uphold evidentiary integrity:- Use Mobile Phones: Capture real-time audio-video of the entire process, including witnesses. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268- Forward Promptly: Send to Magistrate immediately.- Training and Monitoring: Superiors should enforce via departmental action, per NDPS precedents. In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631- Chain of Custody: Videography preserves it against tampering claims.
Police non-adherence risks acquittals, as seen in NDPS appeals vitiated by procedural lapses. JAGDISH SINGH @ THANDU VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 1851
Video recording is indeed mandatory under BNSS Section 105 for chance recoveries involving searches or seizures, promoting transparency and fairness. This aligns with evolving judicial trends favoring technology. Suresh, S/o. Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2268In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631
Key Takeaways:- Applies universally to seizure processes.- Enhances prosecution strength and officer protection.- Complements NDPS without exceptions for chance cases.- Always videograph and notify Magistrates.
Stay updated on BNSS implementations, as courts continue refining these safeguards. For personalized guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
#BNSS #ChanceRecovery #CriminalLaw
It is further submitted by learned counsel that the mandatory compliance of Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’) regarding recording of search and seizure through audio, video electronic means not appears complied with and, therefore, false implication ... In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as recovery of alleged contraband not appears to be made from conscious physical possession of this petitioner, where the recording ....
Section 105 BNSS is being quoted as under: 105. Recording of search and seizure through audio- video electronic means. ... This court came across number of cases where independent witness could not be found regarding recovery of any article and even then audio video recording through E-Sakshya portal or other audio, video electronic means was not conducted by the police which gives benefit to the criminals during bail as ... From the perusal of the record of this case....
For instance, Section 105 of the BNSS reads as under : 105. Recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means. ... or witness statements that are allowed to be recorded on video under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. ... Sections 105, 176, 180, 254, 265, 308, and 349 of the BNSS require that searches, seizures, witness statements, and other crucial steps be recorded by “audio-video electronic means.” ... The BNSS provisions expressly req....
It is submitted that this fact also surfaced while recording the statement of Section 183 of the BNSS of the victim. It is also submitted that on the basis of secret information, this petitioner was implicated falsely with present case. ... Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that police while arresting this petitioner failed to prepared any arrest memo in terms of Section 47 of the BNSS and, therefore, in want of non-compliance of said mandatory provisions, the arrest of petitioner is bad in....
Much emphasis has been given by contending that video recording of the said recovery has not been done by the police as such, there is clear violation of Section 105 of the BNSS. The petitioner has criminal history of two cases, in which he is on bail. ... 3-It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by showing a false recovery of one country-made pistol loaded with one live cartridge whereas no such rec....
Paul, learned counsel also relied on another two decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No.3305/2025 and BA No.3338/2025, wherein also the bail was granted considering the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS. ... It also reveals from the record that the recovery was alleged to have been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that apart, he also led the police team for recovery of the other contraband from his house wherein it was kept. ... Paul, lea....
In this judgment, the issue of video recording under Section 15-A(10) was directly considered; and it was held that it was mandatory if a victim makes a request to video record the criminal proceedings relating to the offences under the Atrocities Act. ... He further submitted that as a ground reality, the Courts were not equipped with the facility of video recording and, therefore, the important proceedings, like, recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,....
BNSS as well as the decision reported in Y.S. ... Discretion is vested with the Investigating Officer to conduct examination of any person summoned under Section 160 of the CrPC through audio-video recording. However, the person so summoned for examination can request his examination to be audio-video recorded.
Given the above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it was fully justified for the trial Court concerned to have permitted the recording of the statements of the witnesses through ordinary video conference/WhatsApp video call. ... Aggrieved by permission to record the statement through ordinary video conference, i.e., WhatsApp or other electronic channels, and not through an embassy, the petitioner had now come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 9. ... The trial Court referred to General....
This was so because the petitioner had previously filed a complaint dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P7) in which he had referred to the alleged video recording. ... It is submitted that in case the petitioners had not confronted the respondent with the video recording during his cross-examination, the element of surprise which was the intent behind the pen drive would have been lost. ... Thus, the bone of contention in the present Revision Petition is that during the cross-examination of Nitish Bhardwaj, counsel for the petit....
As such execution reports of Sections 82 or 83 CrPC submitted by a Constable or a Head Constable cannot inspire requisite confidence as compared to a report of S.I. or above. Mandatory photography and video recording of 82/83 CrPC proceedings and attachment of the video file with the prosecution material-
As such execution reports of Sections 82 or 83 CrPC submitted by a Constable or a Head Constable cannot inspire requisite confidence as compared to a report of S.I. or above. Mandatory photography and video recording of 82/83 CrPC proceedings and attachment of the video file with the prosecution material-
The investigation conducted by PW 1 ASI Parkash Masih has not in any way prejudiced the appellant and the alleged violation pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant has not created any dent in the prosecution case, which otherwise was found in consonance with the material on record. As against this, learned State Counsel submitted that the recovery was lawfully effected. In case of chance recovery, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory.
In a given case, a video recording for that particular case, or for one particular day, may be necessary. But it requires the consent of all, lawyers, litigants and the Judge. We just do not support these proposals for absolute and compulsory recording; and we most resolutely do not approve of any 'live' telecasts.
The last submission made by the learned counsel for the State is that the public witnesses were asked to join the proceedings but since they had refused to join and there being no inconsistency in the testimony of the members of the raiding party their versions cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that public witnesses have not been joined. She has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-6 who had on oath deposed that he had deposited the case property including FSL form in the Malkhana. Further submission is that since this was a case of chance recovery, notice un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
