Allahabad High Court Directs UP DGP To Consider Mandatory Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements U/S 180 BNSS

The High Court also issued investigation guidelines and directed the DGP to communicate them to all Investigating Officers, observing that recordings would assist courts in deciding bail applications and other judicial proceedings.

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by the mother-in-law of a deceased woman, seeking release during trial for alleged dowry death and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed: “Therefore, this Court directs the DGP, U.P. to consider, making it mandatory to prepare audio-video of statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS, so as to make the investigation more transparent and fair and same would also be helpful to the Court while deciding the bail application and other judicial proceedings. The, Director General of Police is further directed to apprise the above guidelines to all the Investigating Officers so that real culprit may be brought to the justice and innocence person may not be subject to harassment due to faulty investigation.”

Advocate Himanshu Mishra appeared for the applicant, Advocate Virendra Kumar Srivastava for the first informant, and Additional Government Advocate D.P.S. Chauhan for the State.

Background

The applicant’s counsel submitted that the deceased had died by suicide by hanging after a dispute over household issues. He alleged that the first informant’s account in the FIR differed from the statement recorded during investigation, and that the applicant had been implicated through general and vague allegations against family members. According to counsel, there was insufficient material showing that she had subjected the deceased to dowry-related cruelty soon before death.

Counsel also submitted that the applicant had no criminal history, invoked the provision concerning women under Section 480 of the BNSS, and assured the Court that she would cooperate with the trial. The State and the first informant opposed bail, although the Court recorded that they could not dispute the facts submitted on her behalf.

The Investigating Officer, an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Agra, appeared pursuant to an earlier direction and acknowledged that he had not prepared an audio-video recording of the first informant’s statement. When confronted with the DGP’s circulars permitting such recording, he offered an unconditional apology.

Court’s Observations

The Court referred to the proviso to Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Rule 20(1) of the BNSS Rules, 2024, which permit electronic audio-video recording of witness statements. It noted that an existing DGP circular made recording a rape victim’s statement compulsory, while recording statements in other cases remained optional. The Court found that several Investigating Officers had misused that option.

Explaining its concern, the Court observed: “This Court came across in number of cases, wherein taking advantage of option given by the DGP in his circulars to prepare the audio-video during recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, I.Os. have not prepared the audio-video. In many cases the I.Os. do not prepare the audio and video just to save themselves from the allegation that the statements of the witnesses under Section 180 BNSS are written by I.Os. themselves by copying the FIR itself.”

The Court also noted that several officers were not following an earlier DGP circular requiring questions to be asked when an FIR was lodged after a delay.

Referring to Sections 176, 179 and 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court discussed prompt investigation at the scene, examination of persons acquainted with the facts, and written requisitions for their attendance. It noted the residence-based examination safeguards for women, males below 15 or above 60, persons with mental or physical disabilities, and persons with acute illness.

Under paragraphs 107 to 109 of the U.P. Police Regulations, the Court explained, an investigator is not merely a recording clerk. The officer must check witness accounts against observations at the scene, avoid prematurely adopting a view for or against anyone, record the commencement of investigation in the case diary, inspect the scene, question relevant persons and consult the village crime notebook. Variations between the complainant’s statement and the FIR must be recorded through a supplementary statement in the case diary.

The Court recalled its directions in Aatish @ Krishnkant v. State of U.P. (2026), following which the DGP had instructed officers not to suggest incriminating material to witnesses, while permitting clarificatory questions. It also referred to Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others (2013), where the Supreme Court emphasised unbiased, honest, lawful investigation directed at bringing the truth before the competent court.

Underscoring the need to consider defence evidence, the Court observed: “From the above quoted provision as well as observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear the basic purpose of investigation is to collect the evidence to bring out the truth of the case and not to collect the evidence with the prejudice against any person to hold him guilty. Therefore, if the accused want to produce any evidence before the Investigating Officer to prove his innocence the same must also be considered carefully by the investigating officer.”

The Court directed investigators to examine independent witnesses rather than confining themselves to the complainant, victim and their associates. It also required prompt examination of the first informant and other witnesses, with audio-video recordings available to the concerned court on demand.

The Court directed: “Immediately after receiving information about the cognizable offence, Investigating Officer should rush to the place of incident and record the statement of first informant and other witnesses as expeditiously as possible without any delay and audio-video of statement should also be prepared preferably with E-Sakshya App and same should be available to the concerned court on its demand.”

For rape and sexual-assault cases, the Court referred to the second proviso to Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and directed that a woman police officer record the victim’s statement at her residence or a place convenient to her. Under Section 184(1) of the same enactment, the victim must be sent to a registered practitioner for medical examination, with her consent, within 24 hours of receiving information about the offence.

Referring to Section 183(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court directed that witnesses in offences punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more be produced before the concerned Magistrate for recording statements. In rape and sexual-assault cases, it directed prompt production of the victim before the Magistrate, without unnecessary delay that could result in tutoring by family members.

The directions also addressed electronic evidence and verification of relevant location and communication details. Where a person’s location or communication with another person was relevant, the Court directed collection of the mobile phone’s call detail records.
On the video-related safeguards, the Court directed: “Where there is allegation of preparing of obscene video in case of sexual assault, in such cases, the I.O. should collect the mobile phone of the accused and if require, the same should be sent to FSL to retrieve data. If there is allegation of making viral of obscene video of the victim, in such cases assistance of Cyber Cell and FSL should also be taken.”

The Court directed that a test identification parade be conducted under paragraph 116 of the U.P. Police Regulations where the victim did not know the accused but could recognise him. It reproduced safeguards requiring identification proceedings to be held in jail wherever possible, before a Magistrate or, where one was unavailable, two respectable and impartial persons. In important cases outside jail, a gazetted police officer should attend if no Magistrate was available.
Emphasising protection against prior exposure, the Court reproduced the requirement: “In all cases in which there is any likelihood that suspects will at any stage have to be paraded for identification by witness, the investigating officer must take steps from the very beginning of his investigation to ensure that witnesses are given no opportunity of seeing the suspects before identification proceedings are held.”

For identification of property allegedly stolen and recovered from a suspect, the Court directed compliance with paragraph 117 of the U.P. Police Regulations, including mixing the recovered property with similar articles. The reproduced provision also required an identification process conducted before a person above suspicion, with precautions against witnesses seeing either the suspected property or the comparison articles beforehand.

Turning to the applicant’s case, the Court held that she was entitled to bail without expressing any opinion on the merits. Its reasoning addressed both the applicant’s circumstances and the conditions affecting criminal trials and detention.

The Court observed: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the applicant is lady (mother-in-law) and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”

Conclusion

Allowing the application without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court ordered release on a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, to the concerned court’s satisfaction. The applicant must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, must sincerely cooperate with the investigation and trial without seeking adjournments, refrain from criminal activity, and attend in accordance with her bond.

Release was permitted on a counsel-verified copy downloaded from the High Court’s official website, with an undertaking to file the certified copy within 15 days. The trial court was directed to transmit the release order through the Bail Order Management System.

Following Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re (2023) and Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2026), the Court’s office was directed to send the order to the applicant through the Agra Jail Superintendent by email or the e-prison portal, and electronically to the trial court, within 24 hours.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send the order to the UP DGP for compliance with the directions to consider mandatory audio-video recording and communicate the investigation guidelines to all Investigating Officers. Any pending application was disposed of.

Cause Title: Smt Chandrakanta v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:192776)

Appearances

Applicant: Advocate Himanshu Mishra

Respondents: Additional Government Advocate D.P.S. Chauhan; Advocates Virendra Kumar Srivastava and Ashish Kumar Srivastava

Click here to read/download Judgment