Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7022
1 MCRC-5362-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5362 of 2026
ANKIT KUMAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Ayush Chourasiya - Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant.
ORDER
The present Miscellaneous Criminal Petition has been filed under
Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order
dated 23.01.2026 passed in Sessions Trial No. 80/2025 by the Third
Additional Sessions Judge, District Datia (M.P.), whereby the petitioner’s
application for taking photographs and videos on record and to cross-
examine prosecution witnesses by showing the said documents was
dismissed.
2. The prosecution case arises out of FIR Crime No. 155/2024
registered at P.S. Godan, District Datia. The complainant, Narendra Yadav,
alleged that on 23.12.2024, a verbal altercation occurred between the boys of
his family and the accused over playing cricket. On 24.12.2024, at around
8:45 a.m., the complainant was allegedly attacked near his brother’s house by
Ankit Yadav, Shivam Yadav, Satyam, and another, during which brick pieces
were thrown, and the complainant was shot in his left hand and right thigh.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/26/2026
11:35:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7022
2 MCRC-5362-2026
Injuries were caused, and the prosecution initiated investigation, ultimately
culminating in filing of a charge sheet under Sections 296, 125, 109(1), 3(5)
of BNSS, 2023, and enhanced Sections 103(1), 117(2) of BNSS, 2023, along
with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Trial commenced, and
prosecution witnesses are being examined. Subsequently, the petitioner filed
an application for placing two photographs and three videos on record, for
confronting prosecution witnesses during cross-examination. The learned
trial court rejected the application vide order dated 23.01.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial
court has erred in exercising its discretion in rejecting the application. The
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. The photographs and
videos are crucial to confront the prosecution witnesses and ensure a fair
trial. The right to cross-examine witnesses on new material is a fundamental
aspect of fair trial under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. Reliance
was placed on judgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of Anu C.R. v.
State of Kerala in Crl. MC No.7885/2025 on 16.10.2025 to support the
contention that documents/electronic evidence can be confronted during
cross-examination.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant
opposed the petition, submitting that the trial court has rightly exercised its
discretion. The facts of the cited judgments are materially different and not
applicable. Allowing the petitioner to confront prosecution witnesses with
documents not previously brought on record could unduly prejudice the
prosecution and disrupt the trial process. The trial court retains the authority
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/26/2026
11:35:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7022
3 MCRC-5362-2026
to decide admissibility and relevance of evidence at the appropriate stage. To
bolster their submissions reliance was placed in the matter of Suninder
Sandha Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.; Cr.A No.5150-5151 of 2025
[@Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) No.11600-11601/2025] dated
02.12.2025.
5. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court
observes that the learned trial court has rightly exercised its discretion in
rejecting the petitioner’s application.
6. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable on
facts. The principles of fair trial do not mandate automatic allowance of
evidence which has not been properly brought on record, especially when the
trial court retains power to assess admissibility and relevance. In the matter
o f Suninder Sandha (supra) the Apex Court in para 15 to 17 has held as
under:-
15. Evidently, Section 91 of the Code does not itself prescribe any stage. The core issue remains
whether invocation of power under Section 91 of the Code by the Trial Court is as per the manner
contemplated/provided for in law. We are mindful that the underlying case in Sarla Gupta
(supra)1 concerned the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002. It is seen that State of Orissa
v Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, relied upon by the High Court, was considered by a
Bench of equal strength in Sarla Gupta (supra). On Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), the Court
commented in Sarla Gupta (supra) as under:
’44. Thus, this Court observed that the entitlement of the accused to seek an order under
Section 91CrPC for the production of the documents that are not relied upon would
ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. These observations are in the context of what
constitutes “the record of the case” for the purposes of Section 227CrPC. Even this
judgment recognises the right of the accused to seek documents at the time of leading
defence evidence by invoking Section 91CrPC. We may note here that what is observed
by this Court is that there is no absolute prohibition on an accused making an application
under Section 91CrPC, before the stage of entering upon defence. It is held that
ordinarily, the entitlement of the accused to apply under Section 91 will not arise till the
stage of defence.’
(emphasis supplied)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/26/2026
11:35:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:70224 MCRC-5362-2026
16. An earlier case, namely Om Prakash Sharma v CBI, Delhi, (2000) 5 SCC 679 was also taken
note of in Sarla Gupta (supra) as below:
’48. …
Thus, this decision will have no application when it comes to the right of the accused to
apply for the production of documents by invoking Section 91CrPC at the stage of
entering defence. The decision means that the said right is ordinarily not available at the
time of framing of the charge. The reason is that while framing a charge, the court can
consider only that material which forms part of the charge-sheet.’
(emphasis supplied)
17. The law is no longer res integra, having been lastly settled by the 3-Judge Bench in Sarla
Gupta (supra), which provides clarity as to the relevant stage at which power under Section 91 of
the Code may be invoked. In the underlying case in these appeals, such stage has not yet been
reached, as defence evidence has not commenced. For clarity, the relevant extracts from Sarla
Gupta (supra) read as below:
’68. Hence, some of our important conclusions are as under:
xxx
68.3. We hold that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and
exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the
accused. As held by this Court, the object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of
the documents, objects, etc. in the custody of the investigating officer which are not relied
upon so that at the appropriate stage, the accused can apply by invoking the provisions of
Section 91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of the documents which are not
relied upon by the prosecution.
xxx
68.5. At the stage of entering upon defence, an accused can apply for the issue of process
for the production of any document or thing in accordance with Section 233(3)CrPC
[Section 256(3) BNSS]. At this stage, he can also apply for the production of a document
or a thing that is in the custody of the prosecution but has not been produced. A fair trial
is a NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3513 5 CRR-5786-2025 part of the
right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to a fair trial
of the accused includes the right to defend. The right to defend consists of the right to lead
the defence evidence by examining the witnesses and producing the documents.
Therefore, the accused is entitled to exercise his right at the stage of entering upon
defence by compelling the prosecution or a third party to produce a document or a thing
in their possession or custody. The court can decline the request of the accused for issuing
process for the production of documents only on the limited grounds set out in sub-
section (3) of Section 233CrPC.
xxx
(emphasis supplied)
7. The stage as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment for filing
application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C./94 of BNSS by an accused is at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/26/2026
11:35:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7022
5 MCRC-5362-2026
stage of defence evidence, which had not reached yet. Thus, it can be said
that no illegality, perversity had been committed by the Trial Court and no
violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner is apparent from the
impugned order.
8. In the light of the above discussion, no case is made out for
interference with the order of the learned trial court. The petition is therefore
dismissed.
9. The learned trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance
with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 2/26/2026
11:35:36 AM
