In a bail application filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking bail during trial of a case under Sections 85, 80(2), 352, 115(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal allowed the applicant to be released on bail.
In pursuance of an earlier order dated 31-08-2026, the Investigating Officer (IO), Assistant Commissioner of Police, Agra, appeared before the Court and apprised it that he had not prepared audio and video during recording of the statement of the first informant under Section 180 BNSS. When confronted regarding DGP’s Circulars which made it clear that while recording a witness statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) audio-video may also be prepared, the I.O. could not reply except to offer an unconditional apology.
The Court found that in numerous cases, IOs do not prepare the audio-video due to the optional nature of this provision and often to shield themselves from allegations that witness statements were merely copied from the FIR. The Court noted that while audio-video preparation had been made compulsory for statements of rape victims under Circular No. 24 of 2025, it remained optional for other cases under Section 180 BNSS, a discretion the Court found had been widely misused.
The Court extensively examined the statutory scheme governing investigation, referring to Sections 176, 179 and 180 of BNSS, and to Paragraphs 107, 108, 109, 116 and 117 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which set out the duties of an Investigating Officer, the procedure for beginning investigation, recording supplementary statements, conducting identification parades as well as identification of recovered property and stated that the Police Officer should not mechanically proceed to record witness statement at the instance of the complainant, but should try to extract the truth by recording statements of independent witnesses.
The Court stated that if the accused person wants to produce any evidence before the IO to prove his innocence, the same must also be considered carefully as nowadays, it has become a tendency in certain type of cases like demand of dowry, dowry death, offence under POCSO Act and SC/ST Act to falsely implicate even those persons who are not involved. It was said that the initiation of criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be a mode to harass innocent persons.
On this basis, the Court issued directions to be followed by IOs during investigation, including preparing audio-video of statements preferably through the E-Sakshya App, recording statements of independent witnesses, following special procedures for recording statements of rape and sexual assault victims, producing witnesses before a Magistrate in offences punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, collecting mobile phones and CDRs where relevant, and conducting identification parades as per the Police Regulations. Further, the DGP, U.P. was directed to consider making audio-video preparation of statements under Section 180 BNSS mandatory and to apprise all IO of the above-mentioned guidelines so that the real culprit may be brought to justice.
Regarding the present case, the Court noted that the applicant was the mother-in-law of the deceased, who had committed suicide by hanging after a petty dispute over household issues, that the first informant’s statement under Section 180 BNSS differed from the FIR, and that the applicant had been falsely implicated with only general and vague allegations, lacking sufficient material to show cruelty soon before death as required for the presumption of dowry death.
Considering the applicant’s status as a lady, the nature of the offence, overcrowded jails, and the pendency of criminal cases, and relying on Kapil Wadhawan v Central Bureau of Investigation 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, the Court allowed the application and ordered the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions restraining inducement or tampering with witnesses, requiring sincere cooperation in trial without seeking adjournments, prohibiting further criminal activity, and mandating compliance with the bond, with breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.
