Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates

“Mandatory Videography Under Section 105 BNSS Is Not Optional—Non-Compliance Casts Serious Doubt on Recovery”, In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural integrity in criminal investigations, the Allahabad High Court on January 5, 2026, granted bail to an accused in a stolen motorcycles case, citing gross non-compliance with Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha San, 2023 (BNSS) and Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh BNSS Rules, 2024, which mandate videographic documentation of all recoveries and seizures.

While allowing bail, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that the absence of audio-video recording of the alleged seizure of 40 motorcycles severely undermined the prosecution’s case, especially when the applicant was not named in the FIR and was arrested solely based on alleged joint possession.

“From the perusal of the record... police has not conducted any videography of the recovery of motor cycles... though the same is mandatory as per Section 105 of BNSS and uploading... on the E-Sakshya portal is also necessary,” the Court observed, terming it “not only negligence but arbitrariness”.

“When Law Mandates Videography, Police Cannot Ignore It—Non-Compliance Benefits Accused at Both Bail and Trial Stages”

Section 105 of BNSS, which replaced the analogous provision under the CrPC, makes it statutorily compulsory to record searches and seizures via audio-video means, preferably mobile phones, and to forward the footage to the Magistrate without delay. Rule 18 of the U.P. BNSS Rules, 2024 supplements this by making the E-Sakshya app the official platform for recording, storing, and transmitting such digital evidence.

Justice Deshwal noted: “This Court came across a number of cases where independent witnesses could not be found... even then audio-video recording... was not conducted by the police... which gives benefit to the criminals during bail as well as trial.”

The Court made it clear that in the absence of compliance, procedural lapses raise serious questions about the credibility of alleged recoveries, especially when no independent witness is cited.

“Bail Cannot Be Denied When Prosecution Fails to Adhere to the Safeguards Meant to Prevent Abuse”

In the instant case, Shadab was not named in the FIR, and the motorcycles allegedly recovered from his joint possession were not videographed, in breach of mandatory legal provisions. Co-accused Shoeb and Owais had already been granted bail by coordinate benches on similar grounds. The Court, therefore, held that Shadab was entitled to bail on the ground of parity and due to procedural irregularities.

Citing the recent Supreme Court judgment in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, SLP (Crl.) No. 16953 of 2025, the High Court emphasized the constitutional importance of due process and procedural fairness, especially in cases involving liberty.

It further referred to the policy guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685, to support the directive for streamlined and standardized bail procedures.

“Director General of Police Must Issue SOP for Videography or Face Consequences: Court Warns of Disciplinary Action for Future Lapses”

The Court did not stop at granting bail. It went a step further and issued a binding direction to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, noting that although a circular was issued on July 21, 2025, acknowledging the legal obligation to conduct videographic search and seizure, no detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has yet been released as required under Rule 18(5).

“This Court directs the DGP... to issue detailed SOP... and further directs that failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 105 BNSS read with Rule 18... may attract disciplinary proceedings,” Justice Deshwal ordered.

The Registrar (Compliance) of the High Court was also directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the DGP, U.P., ensuring immediate administrative compliance.

“Protecting Innocents and Prosecuting Guilty Requires Adherence to Procedure—Not Just Police Intuition”

This judgment sends a loud and clear message to investigating agencies: that statutory procedures are not technicalities to be ignored, but are fundamental guarantees against wrongful implication and tools to ensure credible evidence collection.

The Court emphasized: “On the one hand it would save innocent persons from false implication by showing false recovery... and on the other hand, it would prepare foolproof evidence against criminals.”

The trial court was further directed to issue release orders via the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) for prompt jail communication, and the order was to be served electronically on the applicant via the jail superintendent, in line with Supreme Court guidelines.

Date of Decision: January 5, 2026