SHAKTISINH YOGENDRASINSH GOHELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/13607/2025                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




                                              Reserved On   : 29/01/2026
                                              Pronounced On : 05/02/2026

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13607 of 2025

                            With
 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2026
     In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13607 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY                                     Sd/-
==========================================================

           Approved for Reporting               Yes           No
                                                              

==========================================================
                     SHAKTISINH YOGENDRASINSH GOHEL
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SHRI I H SYED, Senior advocate with MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY


                             CAV JUDGMENT


Order in Criminal Misc. Application No.01 of 2026 in Special
Criminal Application No.13607 of 2025.

1.     The present application is filed by the applicant who is the
original complainant in the proceedings in question. He has
sought permission of this Court to be joined as a party in the
proceedings of Special Criminal Application No.13607 of 2025.

2.     As per the settled law, the victim or the complainant has a
right to be heard at every stage of the criminal trial and hence,

                                Page 1 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




the present application deserves to be allowed and the same is
hereby allowed.




Order in Special Criminal Application No.13607 of 2025.

1.     By filing the present petition under the Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after to be
referred as ‘the BNSS’), the petitioner has prayed for the
following relief:

             “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an
             appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
             setting aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by
             the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj
             below Exh.713 in Sessions Case no.43 of 2021
             clubbed with Sessions Case no.44 of 2021; and
             further be pleased to allow application Exh.713 as
             prayed for, in the interest of justice;
             (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal
             of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to
             stay the operation, execution and implementation of
             the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned
             Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj below
             Exh.713 in Sessions Case no.43 of 2021 clubbed
             with Sessions Case no.44 of 2021;
             (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to dispense with
             filing of the affidavit as the petitioner is in jail;
             (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such
             other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in
             the interest of justice.”




                                Page 2 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                                   CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




2.     The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the
petition are such that the petitioner herein is facing the trial
before the learned Sessions Court at Bhuj vide Sessions Case
No.43/2021 and 44/2021 for an offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after to be referred
as ‘the IPC’) with other allied offences. Pending the trial, an
application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted by the petitioner
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein
after to be referred as ‘the CrPC’) (Section 348 of the BNSS)
praying for production of the CCTV footage between 23:59 hours
to   21:40      hours   of   19.01.2021        to   20.01.2021.       The     said
application was dismissed by the learned Additional Session
Judge, Kuchchh at Bhuj vide order dated 15.09.2025.                         Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has
come before this Court by filing the present petition.

3.     Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri. I. H. Syed with
learned advocate Shri. Pratik Y. Jasani appearing for the
petitioner. He submitted that an application came to be
submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court vide
Exhibit-448 seeking CCTV footage for the period mentioned
herein above. The said application was allowed by the learned
Trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2024. The learned Sessions
Court in its order dated 25.11.2024 had directed that the DVR in
question be handed over to the investigating agency in the court
premises in the presence of the officer of the court who is an
expert in computers. It was further directed that the CCTV
footages for the aforesaid period be copied from the said DVR
and be provided to the Court as well as to the defence.



                                 Page 3 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                          CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




Accordingly, the DVR was checked in the presence of the officer
of the court and it was found that it contained no backup of the
CCTV footage for the aforesaid period and therefore the copies of
the same could not be provided to the court as well as to the
defence. In the said order, the learned Trial Court had
principally agreed that the CCTV footage in question was
required for the defence of the present petitioner. He further
submitted that the DVR in question was sent to the FSL for the
purpose of examination and the report of the FSL has also been
received by the learned Trial Court. The report indicates that the
DVR contained the CCTV footages for the aforesaid period and
since the FSL has already examined the DVR in question, the
same can very well be retrieved by the FSL and therefore, the
application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted by the petitioner
before the learned Trial Court praying for the CCTV footages in
question be retrieved from the FSL and supplied to the
petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the learned
Trial Court. He submitted that, as noted herein above, the prayer
of the petitioner for grant of CCTV footages in question had
already been acceded to. However, since the same did not
materialise, the petitioner was forced to file another application.
He submitted that the CCTV footages in question would make
the position clear that the first informant had not gone to the
police station on the date and time as per the case of
prosecution. Thus, the CCTV footages in question are crucial for
the defence of the petitioner and therefore, the learned Trial
Court ought to have accepted the application submitted by the
petitioner. He further submitted that it is true that on earlier
point of time, the petitioner had preferred another application


                             Page 4 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




with the same prayer before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit-
464. However, the said application was filed by him under
Section 91 of the CrPC whereas, the application under Exhibit-
713 was filed by him invoking the Provision of Section 311 of the
CrPC. The purview of both the provisions is different and merely
because his prayer under application Exhibit-464 had been
declined, he cannot be precluded from invoking the Provision of
Section 311 of the CrPC. He therefore submitted to allow the
present petition by quashing and setting aside the order
impugned in the present petition and direct the learned Trial
Court to ask the FSL to retrieve the CCTV footages in question
and provide the same to the petitioner.

4.     Learned         APP     has    opposed       the    present       application
contending that, earlier, the petitioner had submitted similar
such application before the learned Trial Court vide Exhibit-464
which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated
27.01.2025.          Against    the    said     order,     the     petitioner      had
approached           this    Court    by   filing    the     Criminal        Revision
Application No.212 of 2025, which was also dismissed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025. He
further submitted that the trial of the offence is at the stage of
final arguments and the petitioner herein is in the habit of
submitting one application after the other with an intention to
delay the conclusion of trial. Thus, the application filed by the
petitioner is nothing but a dilatory tactic adopted by the
petitioner to delay the trial. She therefore submitted to dismiss
the present petition.

5.     Learned Advocate Shri. Kirtidev R. Dave appearing for the


                                      Page 5 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                           CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




original complainant has also opposed the present application by
contending that the petitioner herein wants to delay the trial by
resorting to such tactics of filing frivolous applications before the
Trial Court. The prayer made by the petitioner in the application
before the learned Trial Court has already been declined once up
to this Court and therefore, the present petition is not
maintainable. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present
petition.

6.     Heard learned advocates for the parties. It would be
necessary to record few facts to know the actual position of the
matter. From the record it appears that the petitioner herein had
submitted an application vide Exhibit-448 before the Learned
Trial Court praying for furnishing the CCTV footages of the
Mundra Police Station dated 19.01.2021 from 21:00 hours to the
time when the DVR was switched off. The learned Trial Court by
the order dated 25.11.2024 had allowed the said application. It
was observed in the order by the learned Trial Court that since
sending the DVR to the FSL would take long time, the DVR be
handed over to the computer expert of the prosecution in the
presence of the responsible officer of the court and the expert of
the prosecution should copy the CCTV footage between 00:00
hours to 21:40 hours of 20.01.2021 and provide the copy of the
same to the defence. Upon the aforesaid order being passed by
the learned Trial Court, the DVR was examined by the computer
expert of prosecution and it was reported to the learned Trial
Court vide Exhibit-456 that there was no backup in the DVR for
the CCTV footages in question. Thereafter, another application
came to be submitted by the petitioner before the learned Trial



                              Page 6 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




Court vide Exhibit-464 demanding the very same CCTV footages.
The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court
vide order dated 27.01.2025, against which, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application
No.212 of 2025. In the said revision application, a prayer was
made by the petitioner for stay of the proceedings of trial before
the learned Trial Court. Since the prayer for stay of the trial was
declined by this Court, the petitioner had approached the
Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.7458 of 2025. The petition filed before the Hon’ble Apex
Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated
16.05.2025. While dismissing said petition, the Hon’ble Apex
Court had made the following observations:

              “(1) The instant petition impugns an order by
              which on the application of the petitioner, notices
              were issued fixing a returnable date without
              passing an interim order.
              (2)     The grievance of the petitioner is that he
              had challenged an order rejecting his application
              under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal
              Procedure, 1973 for production of CCTV footage
              which would be relevant for his defence. In these
              circumstances, according to petitioner, the High
              Court ought to have stayed the proceedings in the
              trial court otherwise the matter would be rendered
              infructuous.
              (3)    During the course of submissions, learned
              counsel for the petitioner admitted that the case
              before the trial court has since proceeded and is at
              the stage of arguments.
              (4)    In such circumstances, we decline to
              entertain the Special Leave Petition while leaving


                                 Page 7 of 9
R/SCR.A/13607/2025                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




              it open to the petitioner to take all such pleas, as
              may be available to him in law, in appeal in case
              he is aggrieved by the final order passed in the
              trial.”

7.     After the petition filed by the petitioner got dismissed from
the Hon’ble Apex Court, he submitted an application vide
Exhibit-713 before the learned Trial Court on 22.07.2025. It is
pertinent to note that on the day on which the application vide
Exhibit-713 was submitted by the petitioner before the learned
Trial Court, Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025 was
pending consideration before this Court. This conduct on the
part of the petitioner signifies the intention on the part of the
petitioner to delay the conclusion of trial on one ground or the
other. When the Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025,
wherein the same issue was involved, was pending before the
Court, there was no reason for the petitioner to submit another
application before the learned Trial Court with the same prayer.

8.     It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that
the application vide Exhibit-464 was submitted by the petitioner
invoking the Provision of Section 91 of the CrPC whereas the
application vide Exhibit-713 was submitted under Section 311 of
the CrPC, merely because the earlier application filed by the
petitioner which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court was
filed under Section 91 of the CrPC does not entitle the petitioner
to file another application invoking a different provision with the
same prayer. It is pertinent to note that, in the interregnum,
Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025 came to be
dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 07.10.2025. Thus, the order passed below Exhibit-464 by


                                 Page 8 of 9
     R/SCR.A/13607/2025                                                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026




    the learned Trial Court has attained finality. At this stage, the
    observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated
    16.05.2025 in paragraph-04 are required to be referred to. The
    Hon’ble Apex court has observed “We decline to entertain this
    Special Petition while leaving it open to the petitioner to take all
    such pleas, as may be available to him in law, in appeal in case
    he is aggrieved by the final order passed in the trial” and despite
    the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex court, the
    petitioner had filed an application below Exhibit-713. This, as
    noted herein above, indicates the intention on the part of the
    petitioner to delay the trial. Allowing the present petition would
    amount to reviewing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench
    of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2025,
    which is not permissible in law.

    9.         Under           the        circumstances,                    the        present            petition            is
    thoroughly misconceived and therefore, the same is hereby
    dismissed.

                                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                                                (M. R. MENGDEY,J)
    AHS

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AMIT SONAGARA(HCD0079), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/02/2026 18:12:34




                                                            Page 9 of 9