R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 Reserved On : 29/01/2026 Pronounced On : 05/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13607 of 2025 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13607 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No  ========================================================== SHAKTISINH YOGENDRASINSH GOHEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: SHRI I H SYED, Senior advocate with MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY CAV JUDGMENT Order in Criminal Misc. Application No.01 of 2026 in Special Criminal Application No.13607 of 2025. 1. The present application is filed by the applicant who is the original complainant in the proceedings in question. He has sought permission of this Court to be joined as a party in the proceedings of Special Criminal Application No.13607 of 2025. 2. As per the settled law, the victim or the complainant has a right to be heard at every stage of the criminal trial and hence, p. 2 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 the present application deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. Order in Special Criminal Application No.13607 of 2025. 1. By filing the present petition under the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after to be referred as ‘the BNSS’), the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj below Exh.713 in Sessions Case no.43 of 2021 clubbed with Sessions Case no.44 of 2021; and further be pleased to allow application Exh.713 as prayed for, in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj below Exh.713 in Sessions Case no.43 of 2021 clubbed with Sessions Case no.44 of 2021; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to dispense with filing of the affidavit as the petitioner is in jail; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” p. 3 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the petition are such that the petitioner herein is facing the trial before the learned Sessions Court at Bhuj vide Sessions Case No.43/2021 and 44/2021 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after to be referred as ‘the IPC’) with other allied offences. Pending the trial, an application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after to be referred as ‘the CrPC’) (Section 348 of the BNSS) praying for production of the CCTV footage between 23:59 hours to 21:40 hours of 19.01.2021 to 20.01.2021. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Kuchchh at Bhuj vide order dated 15.09.2025. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri. I. H. Syed with learned advocate Shri. Pratik Y. Jasani appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that an application came to be submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit-448 seeking CCTV footage for the period mentioned herein above. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2024. The learned Sessions Court in its order dated 25.11.2024 had directed that the DVR in question be handed over to the investigating agency in the court premises in the presence of the officer of the court who is an expert in computers. It was further directed that the CCTV footages for the aforesaid period be copied from the said DVR and be provided to the Court as well as to the defence. Page 3 of 9 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 Accordingly, the DVR was checked in the presence of the officer of the court and it was found that it contained no backup of the CCTV footage for the aforesaid period and therefore the copies of the same could not be provided to the court as well as to the defence. In the said order, the learned Trial Court had principally agreed that the CCTV footage in question was required for the defence of the present petitioner. He further submitted that the DVR in question was sent to the FSL for the purpose of examination and the report of the FSL has also been received by the learned Trial Court. The report indicates that the DVR contained the CCTV footages for the aforesaid period and since the FSL has already examined the DVR in question, the same can very well be retrieved by the FSL and therefore, the application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court praying for the CCTV footages in question be retrieved from the FSL and supplied to the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. He submitted that, as noted herein above, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of CCTV footages in question had already been acceded to. However, since the same did not materialise, the petitioner was forced to file another application. He submitted that the CCTV footages in question would make the position clear that the first informant had not gone to the police station on the date and time as per the case of prosecution. Thus, the CCTV footages in question are crucial for the defence of the petitioner and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have accepted the application submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that it is true that on earlier point of time, the petitioner had preferred another application p. 5 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 with the same prayer before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit- 464. However, the said application was filed by him under Section 91 of the CrPC whereas, the application under Exhibit- 713 was filed by him invoking the Provision of Section 311 of the CrPC. The purview of both the provisions is different and merely because his prayer under application Exhibit-464 had been declined, he cannot be precluded from invoking the Provision of Section 311 of the CrPC. He therefore submitted to allow the present petition by quashing and setting aside the order impugned in the present petition and direct the learned Trial Court to ask the FSL to retrieve the CCTV footages in question and provide the same to the petitioner. 4. Learned APP has opposed the present application contending that, earlier, the petitioner had submitted similar such application before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit-464 which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 27.01.2025. Against the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025, which was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025. He further submitted that the trial of the offence is at the stage of final arguments and the petitioner herein is in the habit of submitting one application after the other with an intention to delay the conclusion of trial. Thus, the application filed by the petitioner is nothing but a dilatory tactic adopted by the petitioner to delay the trial. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition. 5. Learned Advocate Shri. Kirtidev R. Dave appearing for the p. 6 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 original complainant has also opposed the present application by contending that the petitioner herein wants to delay the trial by resorting to such tactics of filing frivolous applications before the Trial Court. The prayer made by the petitioner in the application before the learned Trial Court has already been declined once up to this Court and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition. 6. Heard learned advocates for the parties. It would be necessary to record few facts to know the actual position of the matter. From the record it appears that the petitioner herein had submitted an application vide Exhibit-448 before the Learned Trial Court praying for furnishing the CCTV footages of the Mundra Police Station dated 19.01.2021 from 21:00 hours to the time when the DVR was switched off. The learned Trial Court by the order dated 25.11.2024 had allowed the said application. It was observed in the order by the learned Trial Court that since sending the DVR to the FSL would take long time, the DVR be handed over to the computer expert of the prosecution in the presence of the responsible officer of the court and the expert of the prosecution should copy the CCTV footage between 00:00 hours to 21:40 hours of 20.01.2021 and provide the copy of the same to the defence. Upon the aforesaid order being passed by the learned Trial Court, the DVR was examined by the computer expert of prosecution and it was reported to the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit-456 that there was no backup in the DVR for the CCTV footages in question. Thereafter, another application came to be submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial p. 7 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 Court vide Exhibit-464 demanding the very same CCTV footages. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, against which, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025. In the said revision application, a prayer was made by the petitioner for stay of the proceedings of trial before the learned Trial Court. Since the prayer for stay of the trial was declined by this Court, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.7458 of 2025. The petition filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.05.2025. While dismissing said petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court had made the following observations: “(1) The instant petition impugns an order by which on the application of the petitioner, notices were issued fixing a returnable date without passing an interim order. (2) The grievance of the petitioner is that he had challenged an order rejecting his application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for production of CCTV footage which would be relevant for his defence. In these circumstances, according to petitioner, the High Court ought to have stayed the proceedings in the trial court otherwise the matter would be rendered infructuous. (3) During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the case before the trial court has since proceeded and is at the stage of arguments. (4) In such circumstances, we decline to entertain the Special Leave Petition while leaving p. 8 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 it open to the petitioner to take all such pleas, as may be available to him in law, in appeal in case he is aggrieved by the final order passed in the trial.” 7. After the petition filed by the petitioner got dismissed from the Hon’ble Apex Court, he submitted an application vide Exhibit-713 before the learned Trial Court on 22.07.2025. It is pertinent to note that on the day on which the application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025 was pending consideration before this Court. This conduct on the part of the petitioner signifies the intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the conclusion of trial on one ground or the other. When the Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025, wherein the same issue was involved, was pending before the Court, there was no reason for the petitioner to submit another application before the learned Trial Court with the same prayer. 8. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application vide Exhibit-464 was submitted by the petitioner invoking the Provision of Section 91 of the CrPC whereas the application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted under Section 311 of the CrPC, merely because the earlier application filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court was filed under Section 91 of the CrPC does not entitle the petitioner to file another application invoking a different provision with the same prayer. It is pertinent to note that, in the interregnum, Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025 came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025. Thus, the order passed below Exhibit-464 by p. 9 R/SCR.A/13607/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026 the learned Trial Court has attained finality. At this stage, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated 16.05.2025 in paragraph-04 are required to be referred to. The Hon’ble Apex court has observed “We decline to entertain this Special Petition while leaving it open to the petitioner to take all such pleas, as may be available to him in law, in appeal in case he is aggrieved by the final order passed in the trial” and despite the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex court, the petitioner had filed an application below Exhibit-713. This, as noted herein above, indicates the intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the trial. Allowing the present petition would amount to reviewing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025, which is not permissible in law. 9. Under the circumstances, the present petition is thoroughly misconceived and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS