अल्लाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने सभी 180 BNSS गवाह बयानों की ऑडियो‑वीडियो रिकॉर्डिंग को अनिवार्य करने की सिफारिश की

S. 180 BNSS | Allahabad High Court Asks DGP To Make Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory For IOs

Sparsh Upadhyay

17 Sept 2026 12:46 PM IST

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to consider making audio-video recording of statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS 'mandatory', observing that such a step would make criminal investigations more transparent and fair.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the direction while dealing with a bail application filed by a woman accused in a dowry-related case.

During the hearing, the IO, who was present before the Court, admitted that he had not prepared an audio-video recording while recording the first informant's statement under Section 180 BNSS.

The IO tendered an unconditional apology after the Court confronted him with the DGP's Circular dated July 21, 2025, and another Circular dated August 4, 2026, concerning the audio-video recording of statements.

The High Court noted that it had come across a number of cases in which Investigating Officers had not prepared audio-video recordings, despite the option provided in the DGP circulars.

According to the Court, in several cases, Investigating Officers do not prepare such recordings "just to save themselves from the allegation that the statements of the witnesses under Section 180 BNSS are written by IOs themselves by copying the FIR itself".

The Court noted that Section 180(3) BNSS, read with Rule 20(1) of the BNSS Rules, 2024, permits an Investigating Officer to record a witness's statement through audio-video electronic communication.

It further noted that the DGP's Circular No. 24/2025 makes audio-video recording of the statement of a rape victim compulsory, while recording of other statements under Section 180 BNSS has been left optional.

The Court observed that this option "has been widely misused by several Investigating Officers".

Against this backdrop, the Court directed the DGP to consider making audio-video recording of all statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS mandatory.

"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 Court further directed the DGP to apprise all Investigating Officers of the guidelines so that "real culprit may be brought to the justice and innocence person may not be subject to harassment due to faulty investigation".

Allahabad High Court on purpose of Investigation

The Allahabad High Court also made significant observations on the manner in which criminal investigations are required to be conducted.

Referring to the duties of an Investigating Officer under the BNSS and the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, the Court emphasized that an IO is not merely a clerk. The officer is required to observe and infer facts and has a duty to find the truth, rather than merely secure a conviction.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's observations in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, to stress that investigation involves collection of evidence and formation of an opinion and that a fair and proper investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law.

The High Court observed thus:

"The purpose of investigation is to collect the material not to create the materiel regarding the offence in question..."

The Court noted that, in several cases, Investigating Officers themselves suggested incriminating material to first informants or witnesses, a practice that had previously been deprecated by the High Court.

Justice Deshwal referred to his earlier order in Aatish @ Krishnkant v. State of UP, following which the DGP had issued a circular directing police personnel not to suggest incriminating material to witnesses and instead to ask only clarificatory questions.

The Court further stressed that the purpose of investigation is to bring out the truth and not to collect evidence with prejudice against an accused. It observed thus:

"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 observed that there had been a tendency in certain types of cases, including cases involving dowry demand, dowry death, offences under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act, to falsely implicate even persons who may not be involved.

It stated that an Investigating Officer must collect evidence fairly to bring the real culprit before the competent court, and that the initiation of criminal proceedings should not be used to harass innocent persons.

Directions To Investigating Officers

Apart from the proposed mandatory audio-video recording of Section 180 BNSS witness statements, the Court issued several directions concerning investigation.

These include promptly visiting the scene of occurrence; recording the statements of informants and witnesses expeditiously; preferably using the E-Sakshya App for audio-video recording and making such recordings available to the Court; recording statements of independent witnesses; and ensuring appropriate procedures in cases involving rape and sexual assault.

The Court also directed Investigating Officers to collect relevant mobile and forensic evidence in cases involving obscene videos, obtain call detail records wherever relevant, conduct test identification parades where required and identify property in accordance with law.

Bail To Mother-In-Law

The Court was dealing with a bail application filed by one Chandrakanta, the mother-in-law of the deceased, in a case registered under Sections 85, 80(2), 352, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court noted discrepancies between the FIR version and the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS. It also found that the allegations against the applicant were general and vague and that there was no sufficient material showing dowry harassment prior to the deceased's death.

The applicant had no criminal history and had been in jail since May 18, 2026.

Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity, the applicant's status as a woman and other factors, the Court granted her bail. The Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, for compliance.

Case Title - Chandrakanta vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713

Powered by Nyaya 247 News