[2025:RJ-JP:21757] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1188/2025 Ankit Bakoliya S/o Shri Panna Lal Regar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Regaran Mohalla, Badi Bast Pushkar, District Ajmer (Raj). ----Petitioner-Complainant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Ajmer. ----Respondent 2. Mukesh Bairwa S/o Shri Ratan Lal Bairwa, R/o Near Panchayat Bhawan, Kekdi, District Ajmer (Raj). ----Respondent-Accused For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena with Mr. Divyansh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 23/05/2025 Learned counsel- Shri Anshuman Saxena has submitted that the petitioner-complainant is aggrieved of the accidental death of his brother, and therefore, he pleas that the recordings of the C.C.T.V. of the concerned area be provided to him. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has submitted that as per the procedural law as specified in the B.N.S.S. Section 230, even if the CCTV recording is supplied to the petitioner, the same will not cause any prejudice, rather the same will be beneficial for an appropriate legal adjudication. It is further submitted that the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court has no specific rationale and hence is against [2025:RJ-JP:21757] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1188/2025] the principles of natural justice, fair trial and the settled position of law. It is lastly submitted that the beneficial interpretation of the provisions of BNSS is ought to be done. Heard. Issue notices. On directions of the Court, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notices for respondent-State. Taking note of the provisions as stated above, this Court is of a view that no prejudice will be cause if the C.C.T.V. recording in question is supplied to the petitioner herein. The relevant relied upon provision is reproduced herein below: “230. Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay, and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the accused, furnish to the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) the police report; (ii) the first information report recorded under section 173; (iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 180 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (7) of section 193; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 183; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (6) of section 193: Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the [2025:RJ-JP:21757] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1188/2025] Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) with a copy thereof, may furnish the copies through electronic means or direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through an advocate in Court: Provided also that supply of documents in electronic form shall be considered as duly furnished.” In view of the aforementioned, this Court directs that upon moving requisite application, the CCTV recording in question, be supplied to the petitioner/counsel of the petitioner. It is expected that have the petitioner received the said recording, appropriate endeavor be made for adjudication of the matter by the learned Trial Court, pronto. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J GAURAV/13