This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
While deciding a bail application, the Allahabad High Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, “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.” The Court noted that although the proviso to Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) already permits audio-video recording of witness statements, UP police circulars have so far made this optional (except for rape victims), and that several investigating officers avoid recording audio-video altogether. The underlying criminal case remains pending trial, and this article expresses no view on the allegations in it.
- Case: Smt Chandrakanta v. State of U.P.
- Citation: Neutral Citation 2026:AHC:192776 (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30325 of 2026)
- Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Date: 15 September 2026
Facts
The applicant, described in the order as the mother-in-law of the deceased, sought bail in a case registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, following the deceased’s death by suicide after what the applicant’s counsel described as a dispute over household issues. She had been in custody since 18 May 2026.
During the hearing, the investigating officer — an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Agra — appeared before the Court and admitted that he had not prepared an audio-video recording while recording the first informant’s statement under Section 180 BNSS. When confronted with two DGP circulars (Circular No. 24 of 2025 dated 21.07.2025 and Circular No. 39 of 2026 dated 04.08.2026) clarifying that audio-video recording “may also be prepared” for statements under Section 180 BNSS, the officer “could not reply the same except to offer unconditional apology.”
What the Court Held
1. Audio-video recording under Section 180 BNSS is optional, not mandatory, under the present circulars — and that gap is being misused. The Court noted that the DGP had issued directions to prepare audio-video recordings at different stages of investigation, making it compulsory only for the statement of a rape victim, while “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.” It further observed that in a number of cases, investigating officers avoid preparing audio-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.”
2. The Court issued a set of investigation directions. Among them, it directed that “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.” These directions also reiterate existing safeguards for sexual-offence victims under the second proviso to Section 180(3) BNSS and under Section 183(6) and Section 184(1) BNSS, and address recording of witness statements, test identification, and collection of digital/CDR evidence generally.
3. The Court directed the DGP to consider mandating audio-video recording. The operative direction states: the 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 DGP was further directed to communicate these guidelines to all investigating officers, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the DGP for compliance with this specific direction. This is a direction to consider a policy change, not a ruling that audio-video recording is presently mandatory under the statute.
4. Bail was granted without any opinion on the merits. On the facts, the Court noted the applicant’s plea of false implication as a family member, her clean antecedents, and considerations of overcrowded jails, and — relying on the Supreme Court’s approach to bail in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and this Court’s own guidance in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. — held that she was “entitled to be enlarged on bail,” subject to standard conditions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The order records this “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.” The underlying trial is pending, and the allegations against the applicant remain to be proved or disproved before the trial court.
Precedents Relied On
The Court’s direction on audio-video recording was not anchored in case law; it flowed from the statutory text of the proviso to Section 180(3) BNSS, Rule 20(1) of the BNSS Rules, 2024 (as referred to in the order), the DGP’s own circulars, and the Court’s earlier order in Aatish @ Krishnkant v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24645 of 2026, order dated 06.08.2026), in which the Court had already deprecated investigating officers suggesting incriminating material to witnesses. On the general purpose of investigation, the order referred to Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak, (2013) 5 SCC 762, for the proposition that a fair investigation must be “unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law,” and to an older Supreme Court decision on the meaning of “investigation” under the Code. For the bail question itself, it applied Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and the Court’s own decision in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. on the approach to granting bail.
Statutory Backdrop — Section 180 BNSS and Section 161 CrPC
Section 180 BNSS, titled “Examination of witnesses by police,” carries forward the substance of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which allowed a police officer to orally examine any person acquainted with the facts of a case and reduce the statement to writing, with the person bound to answer truly except where an answer would expose them to a criminal charge. Section 161 CrPC contained no provision for audio-video recording of such statements.
Section 180(3) BNSS adds two provisos that did not exist under Section 161 CrPC:
- The first proviso permits (it does not require) that “statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means.”
- The second proviso mandates that the statement of a woman alleging an offence under specified sexual-offence provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 “shall be recorded[] by a woman police officer or any woman officer.”
Because the first proviso uses “may,” recording a Section 180 BNSS statement by audio-video remains discretionary as a matter of statute — the Court’s direction in this case was addressed to the DGP’s administrative circulars, asking that this discretion be converted into a mandatory practice, not that the statute itself be read as already requiring it.
Takeaway
This order does not change the law — Section 180(3) BNSS still makes audio-video recording of witness statements optional, except for rape victims. What it does is flag, from the bench, a practical gap: investigating officers can and do skip audio-video recording of Section 180 BNSS statements precisely in the cases where its absence is most consequential, and an admission of non-compliance drew no explanation beyond an apology in this case. The direction to the DGP to “consider” making the practice mandatory is a policy recommendation embedded in a bail order, not a mandamus rewriting the proviso — whether and how UP Police revises its circulars in response remains to be seen. The underlying criminal case against the applicant is still pending trial, and nothing in this article should be read as a comment on the truth of the allegations either way.
Useful Resources
- Indian Kanoon — Smt Chandrakanta v. State of U.P., 2026:AHC:192776
- Indian Kanoon — Section 180 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (bare text)
- Verdictum — report on the order
- India Code — Legislative Department portal
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.