Rakesh Yadav vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could not seek directions for the Investigating Agency to provide records that were not taken into police possession during the investigation. The Court noted that the challan had already been presented and the case was pending for charge consideration. As per Section 207 Cr.P.C. (now Section 230 of BNSS, 2023), all supporting documents must have been provided to the petitioner at the time of challan presentation. The Court accepted the prosecution's submission that the CCTV cameras were not in working condition and were repaired by KN Enterprises, making it impossible to direct the Investigating Agency to hand over any such record. The petitioner was granted liberty to cross-examine the Investigating Officer on this aspect and to lead defense evidence. Consequently, the Court found that the Judicial Magistrate had rightly rejected the petitioner's application and upheld the impugned order.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Yadav, is facing trial in FIR No. 157 registered on 05.07.2021 for various IPC offenses. A cross-version DDR No. 44 was also registered on his statement. The occurrence took place outside a dhaba owned by the husband of respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought CCTV footage and repair bills with GST details from a firm named 'KN Enterprises' related to the dhaba's CCTV cameras, which he claimed were material for his defense. The Investigating Agency had previously sought this footage. After the challan was presented, the petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate seeking directions to provide this record. The Magistrate dismissed this application by an order dated 10.09.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Investigating Agency to provide CCTV footage and repair bills with GST details from 'KN Enterprises', when such records were not taken into police possession during the investigation? The petitioner argued that the CCTV footage and associated repair bills with GST details from 'KN Enterprises' were crucial for the final adjudication of the case and his defense. He contended that withholding this material record caused him great prejudice and that the Magistrate wrongly dismissed his application. The petitioner relied on the fact that the Investigating Agency had previously attempted to obtain this footage and that the occurrence took place outside the dhaba. The respondent-State argued that the challan had already been presented and the case was pending for charge consideration. They contended that the petitioner could not seek directions for records not collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation. The State also pointed out that according to the prosecution, the CCTV cameras were not in working condition and were repaired by KN Enterprises.