- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1432 WP No.203071 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.203071 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHARANABASAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KHANAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 302. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AJAY JAWALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI, KALABURAGI 585 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDERS DATED 28-10-2024 (ANNEXURE-D) AND 04-11-2024 (ANNEXURE-G) RESPECTIVELY, AND ORDERED TO ISSUE THE COPY OF VIDEO GRAPH PICTURE FROM THE CCTV FOOTAGE OF DISTRICT COURT PREMISES PERTAINING TO THE DATE OF 19-10-2024, IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AND ETC. Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1432 WP No.203071 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.11.2024, rejecting the petitioner’s application to furnish CCTV footage recorded in the Court premises on 19.10.2024 for the period from 06.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, a complaint is lodged against the petitioner alleging assault. Pursuant to the said complaint, FIR is registered and he has been summoned to the police station for investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1432 WP No.203071 of 2024 Court premises attending his work in connection with the bail matter wherein, the petitioner’s client was ordered to be released on bail. Thus, he would contend that, the CCTV footage is required to be perused by the Investigating Officer who has summoned the petitioner to attend the investigation, to substantiate his claim that he was not present at the time of the alleged incident. 5. His application is rejected on the premises that, the said CCTV footage cannot be granted without approval of the High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the CCTV footage would be the piece of evidence and that is required for his defence before the Court or before the Police Officer before whom the petitioner is summoned for the purpose of investigation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand would contend that, the CCTV is installed in the Court premises to ensure the safety of the persons - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1432 WP No.203071 of 2024 visiting the Court premises and that cannot be used as a piece of evidence. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the Bar and perused the records. 9. The CCTV camera is installed in the Court premises to ensure the safety. It does not mean that, the CCTV footage cannot be used as a piece of evidence. On this ground, the petition has to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.10.2024 and 04.10.2024 have to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned orders dated 28.10.2024 and 04.11.2024 are quashed; (iii) The respondent shall issue the CCTV footage in a pen drive to be furnished by the petitioner; (iv) It is further made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the contents of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1432 WP No.203071 of 2024 the CCTV footage or merits of the defence raised by the petitioner. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SVH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34