Accused Cannot Demand Documents During Investigation Merely to Assist in Answering Queries: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of S.91 CrPC Plea in Bank Fraud Probe

“Section 91 CrPC is not a tool for the accused to dictate the course of investigation” – In a significant judgment concerning the procedural rights of an accused during the course of a criminal investigation, the Delhi High Court on December 10, 2025, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Shantanu Prakash, former Director of Educomp Infrastructure and School Management Limited (EISML), challenging the rejection of his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.. The application had sought production of corporate documents to assist in answering queries raised by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during an ongoing probe into an alleged bank fraud amounting to ₹806.07 Crores.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her detailed ruling in Shantanu Prakash v. CBI & Others, upheld the trial court’s finding that the application was “premature and misconceived”, and clarified the limited scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the pre-charge sheet stage, especially when the documents sought are already in possession of the investigating agency.

"Fairness of Investigation Does Not Entitle Accused to Pre-Charge Document Discovery"

Rejecting the plea that the denial of documents violated the petitioner's right to a fair investigation under Article 21, the Court observed:

“Investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the investigating agency. The accused cannot guide or interfere with its course by demanding documents merely to aid their responses to interrogation.”

The petitioner had argued that since EISML had entered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in 2018, the company’s records had been taken over by the Resolution Professional, leaving him without access to key financial documents from 2007–2010. He contended that the CBI was interrogating him on decade-old transactions without providing access to these documents, impairing his ability to respond.

The Court, however, noted that:

“If the petitioner does not remember facts due to the passage of time or lack of documents, he is entitled to state so to the Investigating Officer. The law does not compel an accused to answer questions that are factually impossible for him to answer.”

No Right Under Section 91 CrPC to Seek Documents Already Held by Investigators

Crucially, the Court held that since the documents were already with the Investigating Officer, and the petitioner was being confronted with them during interrogation, the invocation of Section 91 Cr.P.C. was unjustified. The Court observed:

“Section 91 CrPC can indeed be invoked at the investigation stage, but its use depends on whether production is necessary or desirable at that stage. Where the documents are already with the IO and being shown to the accused, no separate direction for their production is warranted.”

The judgment makes it clear that Section 91 CrPC is not a discovery tool for the accused to access all materials at will during investigation. The Court echoed the Supreme Court's warning in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, stating that permitting such applications would risk turning investigation into a "mini-trial", undermining its purpose.

Petitioner May Seek Documents After Filing of Chargesheet Under Section 207 CrPC

The Court further clarified that the accused has a statutory right under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to receive a copy of the police report and all documents relied upon by the prosecution, but only after the filing of the charge sheet, not during the investigation. The petitioner’s reliance on precedents such as Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI and Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy was also rejected, with the Court noting:

“All those decisions pertain to post-charge sheet or discharge proceedings. They are distinguishable and inapplicable to the present facts where investigation is ongoing.”

Limited Judicial Supervision Pre-Charge Sheet – No Allegation of Bias Shown

Addressing the broader concern of fairness and judicial oversight in criminal investigations, the Court observed that while courts may intervene to ensure fair investigation, such intervention is limited and contingent upon allegations of bias or arbitrariness, neither of which were demonstrated in the present case.

“The petitioner does not question the fairness of the investigation. His request for production is based solely on convenience in answering queries, not on any procedural irregularity or bias by the IO.”

CBI Directed to Provide Adequate Time for Reviewing Old/Voluminous Records

However, in a balancing observation, the Court directed that while supply of documents could not be compelled, the Investigating Officer must provide adequate time to the accused when confronting him with voluminous or aged records, to preserve the fairness of the process:

“Where the petitioner is being confronted with voluminous or old documents, the IO shall give sufficient time to peruse them to give complete and informed answers.”

In upholding the Trial Court’s order dated 20.12.2023, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the limited scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the investigative stage, while recognising the importance of fairness in procedure. It emphasized that the accused cannot compel production of documents already held by the prosecution, especially when interrogation is actively ongoing and documents are being shown during questioning.

This ruling clarifies the delicate balance between the investigative autonomy of enforcement agencies and the rights of the accused, particularly in economic offences where vast volumes of corporate records may be involved and long delays between transaction and investigation are common.

Date of Decision: December 10, 2025