SURAJIT GANGULYversusSTATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1975
                                              (1)                     cwp-88-2025.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.88 OF 2025

               Shri. Surajit Ganguly,
               Son of Nitya Nanda Ganguly,
               Aged 45 years, Indian National, Married,
               R/o. 17/7, 5th Cross, Shankarpuram Basvangudi,
               Bangaluru Karnataka.                             ..Petitioner

                            Versus

               1.    State of Goa,
                     Through, The Public Prosecutor,
                     High Court Porvorim, Goa.

               2.    Police Inspector,
                     Through Incharge of
                     Mapusa Police Station,
                     Mapusa Bardez, Goa.                        .Respondents

               3.    Shri. X.
                     Indian National, Married, Major of Age
                     R/o. H. No.142/3/A, Railpark, Morepukur, Serampor,
                     Uttar para, Rishra, Hoogly, West Bengal 712250.
                                               (Original Complainant/respondent)
                                                    …
               Mr. R. J. Pinto, Advocate for Petitioner.
               Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
               Mr. Salil Lawande, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                                   …
                                          CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                RESERVED ON   : 20th AUGUST, 2026.
                PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

               JUDGMENT:-

               1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties,

               matter is heard finally at admission stage.

               2.    The petitioner impugns communication/order dated 02.05.2022

               passed by Children’s Court, Panaji Goa, whereby petitioner is refused
                              (2)                         cwp-88-2025.odt



clone copy of electronic record relied in charge-sheet and Investigating

Officer is directed to supply data as per para 4 of Exhibit D-7, except

gallery of photographs and videos and only allowed petitioner to view

same in Court premises, under pretext of protection of privacy of victim

and prevent misuse.


3.    On complaint made by father of victim girl for criminally

trespassing in house of victim, molesting her by touching private part

and threatening of dire consequences, petitioner was arrested and

charged for offences punishable under Section 451, 354, 376, 506(ii) of

Indian Penal Code r/w Section 8 of Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and

Sections 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (hereafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet/final report is filed against petitioner for

aforesaid offences, which contains electronic evidence.


4.    On 09.12.2019, petitioner filed an application under Section 207

of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) for

supply of clone/copy or mirror image of Input storage data (inclusive of

built-in memory as well as external memory card) of mobile phone

referred at Exhibit-II of charge-sheet/final report and other illegible

documents. On 27.10.2021, Investigating Officer filed reply offering

cloned copy.   Accordingly, on 14.12.2021 order was passed below

Exhibit D-21 directing Investigating Officer to bring laptop and CD,
                                 (3)                      cwp-88-2025.odt



make a copy and hand it over to accused in presence of Public

Prosecutor and Advocate of accused.             However, on 02.05.2022

Successor Judge issued letter to Investigating Officer to provide data

except gallery of photographs and videos and permit petitioner or his

Advocate to view same in Court premises, so as to protect privacy and

misuse. Eventually, nullified order dated 14.12.2021.


5.       Mr. R. J. Pinto, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits

that prosecution proposes to rely upon retrieved data of attached mobile

phone containing videos, however, petitioner/accused is denied forensic

clone/mirror image of electronic device, thereby depriving opportunity

to examine authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence that caused

great prejudice to defence. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. requires Investigating

Officer to supply all documents mentioned in charge-sheet, so as to

ensure accused understands basis of prosecution. Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

mandates to furnish free of cost copies to accused including documents

relied upon by prosecution. A refusal to provide forensic clone of

electronic device would frustrate petitioner’s statutory as well as

Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21.       Reliance of Trial

Court on observations of Supreme Court in case of P. Gopalkrishnan

Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.1 is misplaced.           The High Court of

Rajasthan in case of Harkesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B.

Criminal         Miscellaneous   (Petition)   No.2848/2024    decided       on

1    (2020) 9 SCC 161.
                               (4)                         cwp-88-2025.odt



04.07.2025), distinguished and explained mandate espoused in case of

P. Gopalkrishnan (supra) and reinstated need to provide copies of every

piece of evidence to accused in same form, in which it has been relied

upon by prosecution, so that accused may not be deprived of his right of

fair trial and effective details. It is further submitted that merely by

providing limited access under supervision of Court and within

restricted time would defeat petitioner’s right.          The interest of

prosecution can be protected by providing basic security measures,

password protection by adding layer of control over who can access

contents.


6.    Per contra, Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for

respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Salil Lawande, learned Advocate

appearing for respondent no.3 supports impugned order. They submit

that in present case right of accused is taken due care by balancing right

of privacy of victim, in light of guidelines laid down by Supreme Court

in case of P. Gopalkrishnan (supra).


7.    Undisputedly, prosecution wish to rely upon input storage data

containing videos recorded from seized mobile phone. The petitioner

claims forensic clone/mirror image of electronic device as petitioner

wish to examine authenticity, integrity and reliability of electronic

evidence relied by prosecution. It is trite that, accused has right to claim

copies of documents or request Court for production of documents,
                               (5)                       cwp-88-2025.odt



which is part of charge-sheet and provide him chance of fair defence.

The tape records of speeches and audio/video cassettes including

Compact Disk are regarded as documents within meaning of Section 3

of Act of 1872, which stands on no different footing than photographs.

Such electronic record produced for inspection of Court is documentary

evidence.   Since Criminal Procedure Code is on going statute, Courts

are required to adopt construction with continuous updation compatible

with contemporary situation.


8.    In case of P. Gopalkrishnan (supra) Supreme Court observed that

electronic record is not confined to “data” alone, but it also means

record or data generated, received or sent in electronic form. The

expression “data” includes a representation of information, knowledge

and facts, which is either intended to be processed, is being processed or

has been processed in a computer system or computer network or stored

internally in the memory of computer.          Eventually, documentary

evidence would include all documents including electronic records

produced for inspection of Court subject to requirement under Section

65B of Act of 1872.      In this background, all documents including

electronic record produced for inspection of Court alongwith police

report on which prosecution proposes to use against accused needs to be

furnished to accused as per mandate of Section 207 of 1973 Code. The

contents of memory card/pen-drive normally needs to be furnished to
                                    (6)                     cwp-88-2025.odt



accused in form of cloned copy. Non-supply of same would impinge

upon statutory mandate contained in the 1973 Code and right of accused

to fair trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India.


9.       In light of aforesaid exposition of law, it will have to be examined

as to whether petitioner could have been provided clone copy of mobile

phone, memory card relied upon by prosecution containing photographs

and videos in respect of incident, particularly keeping in mind right of

privacy available to victim.


10.      Mr. Pinto, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner heavily

relied upon observations of High Court of Rajasthan in case of Harkesh

Meena (supra), wherein High Court of Rajasthan considered issued of

right of accused to receive clone copy of memory card used for audio

recording in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

particularly in reference to law laid down by Supreme Court in case of

P. Gopalkrishnan (supra) and observed that accused is entitled for

copies of every piece of evidence in same form, in which it has been

relied upon by prosecution, so that accused may not be deprived of his

right to prepare his defence in an effective manner. Eventually, it was

directed to prosecution to provide clone copy of micro SD card to

accused/petitioner.         Similarly, reliance is placed on observations of

Karnataka High Court in case of Sri. Chirag R. Mehta Vs. The State of

Karnataka2, wherein directions were given to supply documents
2    2020 SCC OnLine Kar 432.
                               (7)                       cwp-88-2025.odt



appended to charge-sheet in tune with judgment in case of P.

Gopalkrishnan (supra)


11.   This Court finds that petitioner cannot draw much advantage

from observations of High Court of Rajasthan in case of Harkesh

Meena (supra), which is pertaining to prosecution under Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and issue as to supply of clone copy of memory

card, whereby some communication has been recorded. In that case,

there was no issue of privacy of victim. Therefore, matter was decided

in reference to right of accused in terms of Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure r/w. Article 21 of Constitution of India and

directions were given to supply clone copy of original Micro SD Card,

so that accused can satisfy himself about genuineness and credibility of

contents thereof, which was treated as document in electronic form.

Similarly, in case of Sri. Chirag R. Mehta (supra) issue was as to

furnishing copy of documents enclosed with charge-sheet, which were

not produced before Court.


12.   In present case, right of petitioner under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure as well as his right to fair trial needs to be balanced

keeping in mind right of privacy available to victim. If gallery of

photographs and videos in respect of incident in question is supplied to

accused in clone copy, possibility of its misuse mitigating privacy of

victim cannot be ruled out. Although it has been submitted on behalf of
                              (8)                       cwp-88-2025.odt



petitioner that dignity of victim can be protected by adopting

appropriate safeguards by furnishing password protected clone copy of

electronic record to petitioner and his Advocate with prohibition of

publication and transmission. However, this Court finds such safeguards

would not be enough with advent of technology and easy availability of

tools to break through security measures.           The Courts cannot

compromise on protection of privacy of victim when petitioner’s right

to fair trial can be balanced through other mode.


13.   In such cases, Court may provide inspection of document to

accused or his Advocate or any expert of his choice. In case of P.

Gopalkrishnan (supra) in similar backdrop Supreme Court observed

that safeguards/conditions like imposing watermarks on retrieved clone

copy or security seals may not rule out possibility of misuse with

advancement of technology and mould relief by permitting appellant to

seek second expert opinion from an independent agency such as Central

Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on all matters, which appellant

may be advised or he can formulate queries with help of expert of his

choice for being posed to state agency. The forensic report prepared by

CFSL/Agency, after analyzing cloned copy of subject memory

card/pen-drive, can be kept confidential by not allowing access to any

one other than agency or accused or his authorized representative until

conclusion of the trial.
                                (9)                         cwp-88-2025.odt



14.   This Court finds, since petitioner or his Advocates are not experts,

they will have to formulate questions with help of expert to be answered

by Science Laboratory/Expert Agency, preferably owned or controlled

by Government. In that view of matter, in present case same course can

be followed as indicated in case of P. Gopalkrishnan (supra). In light

of aforesaid exposition of law, impugned order needs to be

appropriately modified by partly allowing Writ Petition.                Hence,

following order:

                                  ORDER

a.    Writ Petition is partly allowed.

b.    The petitioner is permitted to seek second expert opinion from

independent agency, such as Central Forensic Science Laboratory

(CFSL) on specific queries, which can be formulated by petitioner with

help of expert of his choice.


c.    The petitioner, his Advocate and expert be allowed access to

electronic evidence relied upon by prosecution within Court premises

for purpose of formulating queries.           The queries formulated by

petitioner with assistance of expert, alongwith clone copy of electronic

data/document      be   forwarded     to   reputed   forensic   expert        like

Central/State Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and same shall

be returned to Court alongwith laboratory report.
                                (10)                    cwp-88-2025.odt



d.       The petitioner shall have access to electronic record relied by

prosecution within Court premises as directed by Sessions Court under

impugned order in supervision of Court Officer.


e.       Rule is made absolute in above terms.



                                         (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                  JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026