Police Must Not Put Inculpatory Leading Questions While Recording Statements Under Section 180 BNSS: Allahabad High Court

"The purpose of criminal justice administration is simply not to punish the guilty but also save the innocent person, therefore, the police should not try to suggest the material to witness against the accused." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that police officers must not suggest inculpatory questions or draft witness statements themselves while recording statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is as much to protect the innocent as it is to punish the guilty, while directing the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue strict guidelines across the state.

The matter arose from a bail application filed by one Aatish Alias Krishnkant in connection with a case registered under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur. The deceased had died by consuming a poisonous substance, leading to an FIR lodged by her family members three months after the incident following the receipt of the viscera report. During the proceedings, the court examined audio and video recordings of the first informant and his wife recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

The primary questions before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the unexplained three-month delay in lodging the FIR and whether investigating authorities followed statutory mandates while recording witness statements. The court was also called upon to examine systemic procedural lapses, including the integration of digital platforms like MedLEapr with the Crime Crime Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS).

Police Prohibited From Suggesting Inculpatory Material

"Police Should Write Version In Witness's Own Language"

Upon reviewing the audio and video clips produced by the investigating officer, the bench discovered that the police had attempted to steer the narrative by asking leading questions. The court noted that while a portion of the statement matched the informant's account, the remaining portion appeared to have been authored by the investigating officer himself to create inculpatory evidence.

DGP Directed To Issue Circular Across State

Emphasizing the foundational ethos of criminal jurisprudence, the bench underscored that investigating agencies must faithfully record witness versions without feeding them incriminating material. "Instead thereof, the statement under Section 180 BNSS should be written in the language and version stated by the witness, except certain clarification," the court remarked. Consequently, the court directed the Director General of Police, Lucknow, to issue necessary directives to all police personnel across Uttar Pradesh to strictly adhere to this mandate.

Merits Of The Bail Plea - "Three-Month Delay In Lodging FIR Remains Unexplained"

Addressing the merits of the bail application, the court noted that the deceased had tragically died from consuming poison following a petty family dispute. The bench observed that despite the post-mortem being conducted immediately on the date of the incident without noting any ante-mortem injuries, the FIR was lodged after a prolonged delay of three months upon receipt of the viscera report. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide any plausible explanation for this delayed reporting.

Call Detail Records Fail To Substantiate Harassment Allegations

The court also took note of the fact that allegations concerning a phone call made by the deceased to her sister-in-law a day prior to the incident regarding dowry harassment were falsified during the investigation. The investigating officer confirmed that call detail records (CDR) revealed no such communication. Observing that the chargesheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since November 2025, the court held that further incarceration was unwarranted.

"Applicant Enlarged On Bail Subject To Strict Conditions"

Consequently, the high court allowed the bail application, directing that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount. The court imposed standard conditions to ensure cooperation with the trial, prohibiting any tampering with evidence or inducement of witnesses. The bench further directed the registry to forward copies of the judgment to the DGP, U.P., for strict compliance regarding the recording of witness statements.

Addressing Technological Integration Gaps - "Court Keeps Matter Pending To Resolve MedLEapr And CCTNS Glitches"

Concluding the administrative aspects of the proceedings, the court addressed systemic technical hurdles concerning the non-transfer of data from the MedLEapr digital platform to CCTNS and subsequently to the Crime and Criminal Information System (CIS). To resolve these technical glitches, the court kept the matter pending specifically for that purpose. The bench summoned the Deputy Director General, N.I.C., New Delhi, and the Additional Director General (Technical), U.P. Police, to appear via video conferencing to assist the court in streamlining digital integration.

Date of Decision: 30 July 2026