Allahabad HC Favours Mandatory Video Recording of BNSS Section 180 Statements

Allahabad HC Directs UP DGP To Consider Mandatory Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Under Section 180 Of BNSS

Summary: The Allahabad High Court, in Smt Chandrakanta vs State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30325 of 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:192776, directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to consider making audio-video recording of statements recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandatory. The direction arose during consideration of a bail application concerning allegations of dowry death and related offences. The Investigating Officer admitted that the statement of the first informant under Section 180 BNSS had not been audio-video recorded, despite DGP circulars permitting such recording. The Court observed that the optional nature of audio-video recording had been used by several Investigating Officers and directed that statements should preferably be recorded through the E-Sakshya App and be made available to the concerned court on demand. The Court also issued several investigation-related directions concerning recording statements of independent witnesses, handling cases involving rape and sexual assault, medical examination, identification parades, collection of mobile-phone and call-detail records, and forensic examination of electronic evidence. The Court directed the DGP, U.P. to consider making audio-video recording of Section 180 BNSS statements mandatory and to apprise all Investigating Officers of the guidelines. On the bail application, the Court considered the applicant’s status as the mother-in-law of the deceased, the nature of the allegations, evidence, complicity, overcrowded jails and pendency of criminal cases, and granted bail subject to conditions. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, U.P. for compliance with paragraph 20.

Allahabad High Court Considers Audio-Video Recording Under Section 180 BNSS

It makes eminent sense and is absolutely pragmatic that while taking a giant step forward and making a truly historic move, the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India but all over the world in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Smt Chandrakanta vs State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 30325 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:192776 that was pronounced just recently on 15.06.2026 has directed most commendably the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh to consider making audio-video recording of witness statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandatory to make investigations more transparent and fair. We thus see that the Court held that such recording could make criminal investigations more transparent and assist courts while considering bail applications and other judicial proceedings. It must be noted that the most commendable direction was issued by Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal while he was hearing a bail application that had been filed by Smt Chandrakanta who was the mother-in-law of a deceased woman in connection with a criminal case that had been registered at Basauni Police Station in Agra seeking release during trial for alleged dowry death and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Proceedings Before the Court and Section 180 BNSS

At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.17 of 2026, under Sections 85, 80(2), 352, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Basauni, District-Agra.”

Most strikingly, the Bench lays bare in para 3 disclosing that, “In pursuance of the order dated 31st August, 2026, I.O. of this case Sri Anil Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Agra is present. He apprised to the Court that he has not prepared audio and video during recording the statement of first informant under Section 180 BNSS. When the Court confronted him regarding DGP’s Circular No.24 of 2025 dated 21.07.2025 and Circular No.39 of 2026 dated 04.08.2026 which makes it clear that while recording the statement of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, audio-video may also be prepared, he could not reply the same except to offer unconditional apology.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “This Court came across in number of cases, wherein taking advantage of option given by the DGP in his circulars to prepare the audio-video during recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, I.Os. have not prepared the audio-video. In many cases the I.Os. do not prepare the audio and video just to save themselves from the allegation that the statements of the witnesses under Section 180 BNSS are written by I.Os. themselves by copying the FIR itself.”

To be sure, the Bench observes in para 5 that, “As per proviso of Section 180(3) BNSS and as per Rule 20(1) of BNSS Rules, 2024, the investigating officer may also record the statement of witnesses through audio-video electronic communication.”

It cannot be just glossed over that the Bench points out in para 6 that, “Therefore, DGP had issued directions to prepare audio-video at different stages of investigation. As per the direction of DGP through Circular No.24 of 2025 dated 21.07.2025 preparation of audio-video of statement of rape victim has made compulsory but preparation of audio-video of the statement under Section 180 BNSS in other cases is made optional which has been widely misused by several Investigating Officers.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “A DGP’s Circular 2024 was also issued regarding the procedure of investigation which includes mandatorily asking the question in case FIR is lodged after delay but same is not followed by the several Investigating Officer in U.P.”

Directions Regarding Fair Investigation

As a corollary, the Bench most rationally propounds in para 19 directing and holding that, “From the above quoted provision as well as observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear the basic purpose of investigation is to collect the evidence to bring out the truth of the case and not to collect the evidence with the prejudice against any person to hold him guilty. 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. Now a day, 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 to those persons who are not involved therein. Therefore, it is the duty of investigating officer to collect the evidence fairly to bring out the real culprit before the court of competent jurisdiction and initiation of criminal proceeding itself should not be allowed to be a mode to harass the innocence persons on the part of the complainant. Taking cue from above analysis, this Court issues following directions which has to be followed by the Investigating Officer during investigation;

i. Immediately after receiving information about the cognizable offence, Investigating Officer should rush to the place of incident and record the statement of first informant and other witnesses as expeditiously as possible without any delay and audio-video of statement should also be prepared preferably with E-Sakshya App and same should be available to the concerned court on its demand.

ii. During investigation, the Investigating Officer not only record the statement of complainant, victim and other persons associates to him but should also try to record the statement of independent witnesses to extract the truth regarding incident in question.

iii. In case of rape and sexual assault, the statement of victim should be recorded at her place of residence or as per her convenience by the women police officer (Second proviso of Section 180(3) of BNSS). In such cases, the victim should be sent to the registered practitioner for her medical examination with her consent within 24 hours from the time of receiving information relating to the commission of such offence (Section 184(1) BNSS, 2023)

iv. Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, then the police officer should produce the witnesses before the concerned Magistrate to record his statement and in case of offence of rape or sexual assault, the victim should be produced before the Magistrate to record her statement as soon as commission of offence is brought to notice to the police. In such cases, there should not be unnecessary delay which may some time result in tutoring the victim by her family members. (Section 183(6) of BNSS, 2023).

v. Where there is allegation of preparing of obscene video in case of sexual assault, in such cases, the I.O. should collect the mobile phone of the accused and if require, the same should be sent to FSL to retrieve data. If there is allegation of making viral of obscene video of the victim, in such cases assistance of Cyber Cell and FSL should also be taken.

vi. Where location of accused or any other persons as well as conversation with another person is relevant, in that cases CDR of mobile phone of that person should also be collected to extract the truth.

vii. Where the victim does not know the accused but only recognize him, in those cases, test identification parade must be conducted as per the procedure mentioned in para 116 of U.P. Police Regulation.

viii. Similarly when identification of recovered property from the suspect allegedly stolen, is required then in such cases identification of article of property should be conducted as per the procedure mentioned in para 117 of U.P. Police Regulation i.e mixing the recovered property with other articles of similar nature before conducting the identification of property.”

Direction to the DGP Regarding Mandatory Audio-Video Recording

Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench encapsulates in para 20 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “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, Director General of Police is further directed to apprise the above guidelines to all the Investigating Officers so that real culprit may be brought to the justice and innocence person may not be subject to harassment due to faulty investigation.”

Consideration of the Bail Application

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 21 that, “Now coming to the merit of this case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, who committed suicide by hanging herself after a petty dispute over household issues. It is further submitted that the story of first informant is different in FIR from his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS. The applicant has been falsely implicated merely being mother-in-law of the deceased, though there is no sufficient material against her to show that she harassed the deceased for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry prior to death. The applicant has been falsely implicated by making general and vague allegations along with other family members. It is further submitted that for invoking presumption of dowry death in case of death under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of marriage, there must be sufficient material to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the death, but there is no such material. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and being a lady, she is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 480 BNSS. She is languishing in jail since 18.05.2026. In case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.”

On the contrary, the Bench as it turned out enunciates in para 22 stating that, “On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.”

Most commendably, the Bench while taking a very holistic approach and citing relevant and recent case laws directs and holds in para 23 that, “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the applicant is lady (mother-in-law) and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.”

Bail Conditions and Further Directions

As things stands, the Bench then stipulates and directs in para 24 holding that, “Let the applicant- Smt. Chandrakanta involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.”

Quite ostensibly, the Bench deems it fit to hold in para 25 that, “In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.”

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 26 that, “Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.”

Plainly speaking, the Bench then also directs in para 27 holding that, “Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhar Card of the applicant and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.”

For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 28 stating that, “It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.”

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 29 directing and holding that, “It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 30 directing and holding that, “Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Agra Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as in the case of Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others vs State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.169 of 2025 decided on 29.05.2026.”

What’s more, it is worth noting that the Bench then further directs in para 31 holding that, “Application, if any, stands disposed of.”

Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 32 that, “Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, U.P. for compliance of paragraph no.20 of this order.”

Conclusion

All told, there is certainly not even an iota of doubt that what the Allahabad High Court has directed the DGP of UP to consider mandatory audio-video recording of witness statements under Section 180 of BNSS be considered most seriously and so also the directions that have been issued be most strictly implemented at the earliest as it brooks no more delay any longer now! This will undoubtedly check the most blatant misuse of penal laws and so also ensure that innocents are not framed without any prima facie reason which is the crying need of the hour also! There can be just no denying or disputing it.