Chandrakanta v. State of U.P., 2026

The applicant, Chandrakanta, was the mother-in-law of the deceased in a dowry-related criminal case.

The applicant was accused under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution case concerned the death of the applicant's daughter-in-law and allegations relating to dowry harassment.

The applicant argued that the allegations against her were general, vague and insufficiently specific.

The Court noticed discrepancies between the FIR and the statement subsequently recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

The applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 18 May 2026.

During the hearing, the Investigating Officer (IO) was present before the Court.

The IO admitted that he had not prepared an audio-video recording while recording the first informant's statement under Section 180 BNSS.

The Court confronted the IO with the relevant DGP circulars concerning audio-video recording of statements.

The IO subsequently tendered an unconditional apology for not complying with the applicable directions.

The Court noted that it had encountered several cases where Investigating Officers had failed to make audio-video recordings even though the facility was available.

The Court expressed concern that some officers might avoid recording statements electronically to prevent allegations that they had themselves prepared witness statements by reproducing material from the FIR.

The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 180(3) BNSS and Rule 20(1) of the BNSS Rules, 2024.

The Court also considered the existing DGP directions, under which audio-video recording was compulsory for statements of rape victims, while recording of other Section 180 statements had remained optional.

The Court observed that the optional nature of recording had been misused in several cases.

The Court therefore directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to consider making audio-video recording of all Section 180 BNSS statements mandatory.

The Court also emphasised that an Investigating Officer must conduct a fair and unbiased investigation and must not merely collect material supporting the prosecution.

The Court observed that evidence which may support the innocence of an accused must also be considered by the Investigating Officer.

The Court ultimately granted bail to Chandrakanta, considering the nature of the allegations, evidence, her status as a woman, absence of criminal history and other relevant circumstances.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Chandrakanta in the underlying criminal case.

The Court found that the allegations against the applicant were general and vague and noticed discrepancies between the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

The Court took serious note of the Investigating Officer's failure to make an audio-video recording of the first informant's statement.

The Court directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to consider making audio-video recording of statements under Section 180 BNSS mandatory.

The Court observed that audio-video recording would make criminal investigations more transparent and fair.

Such recordings could also assist courts while deciding bail applications and other judicial proceedings.

The Court directed that all Investigating Officers should be properly informed about the applicable investigative guidelines.

The Court emphasised that an Investigating Officer is not merely a clerk responsible for mechanically writing down statements.

An IO must observe facts, collect evidence, assess material and work towards finding the truth.

The Court stated that the purpose of investigation is to collect material relating to an offence, rather than create material against an accused.

The Court deprecated the practice of Investigating Officers suggesting incriminating material to informants or witnesses.

The Court reiterated that investigators should ask appropriate clarificatory questions instead of putting incriminating facts into the mouths of witnesses.

The Court directed Investigating Officers to consider evidence that may establish the innocence of an accused.

The Court issued directions concerning prompt visits to the place of occurrence, timely recording of statements and use of the E-Sakshya App wherever appropriate.

The Court also emphasised collection of relevant mobile, forensic and electronic evidence, call-detail records and other investigative material wherever necessary.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, for compliance.

The judgment places strong emphasis on transparency in criminal investigation and the proper documentation of investigative steps.

Audio-video recording can create a more reliable record of what a witness actually stated, reducing disputes over the manner in which statements were recorded.

The Court's approach seeks to reduce the possibility of an Investigating Officer altering, reconstructing or improperly influencing the substance of a witness statement.

The ruling reinforces the distinction between collecting evidence and creating evidence.

A fair investigation requires the Investigating Officer to consider evidence from different perspectives rather than proceeding with a predetermined conclusion.

The direction to consider evidence supporting the accused's innocence reflects the requirement of an unbiased investigation.

The Court's criticism of a "clerk-like" approach makes clear that an Investigating Officer has an active responsibility to observe, verify, analyse and infer facts.

The judgment also strengthens the practical importance of electronic evidence and digital documentation in modern criminal investigations.

The use of the E-Sakshya App can assist in preserving investigative material in a more systematic and verifiable manner.

The Court's directions concerning independent witnesses, forensic evidence, mobile data and call-detail records emphasise that investigation should be evidence-based rather than allegation-based.

The judgment also recognises the danger of faulty investigation, particularly where broad allegations may result in persons being unnecessarily implicated.

Importantly, the direction to the DGP is to consider making audio-video recording mandatory; the High Court's direction itself does not amend the text of Section 180 BNSS.

The decision therefore combines the immediate issue of bail with broader institutional directions aimed at improving the quality, fairness and accountability of criminal investigations.