Praveen Nettaru murder: Karnataka High Court directs inspection of CCTV footage of co-accused interrogation

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed its central project coordinator and his technical team to visit the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and National Investigation Agency (NIA) offices in Bengaluru to inspect CCTV footage from when a co-accused in the Praveen Nettaru murder case was interrogated. [Mohammed Shiyab vs NIA].A bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and G Basavaraja passed the order on a writ petition filed by the main accused (petitioner) seeking the production of call records of certain NIA officers as well as CCTV footage from NIA and FSL establishments..The Court dismissed the prayer for the production of call records, but acceded to the request for the examination of CCTV footage..The plea was moved after a co-accused alleged that he was tortured into giving a statement against the main accused. The special court conducting the trial had earlier rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the statement of the co-accused was recorded when he was in judicial custody and nothing prevented him from mentioning the torture when he was produced before the court on subsequent dates.The High Court observed that the doctor who examined the co-accused also certified that there were no injuries on him. Accordingly, it said that the proceedings recorded by the trial court cannot be doubted.However, the High Court added that since the statement by the co-accused could affect the interest of the petitioner, it could consider the request for production of CCTV footage."Though accused No.18 (co-accused) has complained of ill-treatment, and for that reason he should have sought production of footages, we may state that since the statement made by accused No.18 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., may affect the interest of accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner herein, we can consider the request," the Court said..All the same, instead of directing NIA and FSL to produce the footages, the Court directed its central project coordinator and his team to inspect FSL and NIA to retrieve the footage, if at all available, and submit it in a sealed cover..The Court, however, rejected the prayer for the production of the call records of NIA officers, as they were protected by Sections 124 (Official communications) and 126 (Professional communications) of the Evidence Act. .Praveen Nettaru, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Yuva Morcha member, was murdered in Karnataka last year.A first information report (FIR) was registered under Section 302 (punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, on the Union Home Ministry's directions, the probe was taken over by the NIA.After a co-accused in the case alleged ill treatment on part of NIA, the main accused moved an application before the trial court seeking the call records of NIA officers and the examination of CCTV footage of NIA and FSL establishments in Bengaluru.The application was rejected by the trial court. Hence, the main accused moved the High Court..Advocate Mohammed Tahir, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that the co-accused was tortured by the NIA officials to give a statement under Section 164(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Subsequently, the co-accused was made an approver and an application under Section 306 of CrPC was filed.However, the co-accused later refused to be an approver and retracted his Section 164(1) CrPC statement, alleging ill treatment at the hands of the NIA officials. He also alleged that the officials themselves arranged a lawyer for him.This, the petitioner contended, showed that the investigation was not fair and proper. Accordingly, he contended that the call records and CCTV footage would reveal the 'truth'..On the other hand, advocate Prasanna Kumar. for the NIA, argued that the petitioner had no locus standi to seek the records. He contended that if at all the records could be sought, they could only be sought by the co-accused.Further, he claimed that since the storage capacity for CCTV footage was limited, the footage from November last year, when the co-accused was interrogated, may not be available.With respect to the prayer for producing call records, Kumar argued that orders cannot be given to produce such telephonic conversations as they could contain official communication in respect of which confidentiality and secrecy have to be maintained. .The matter is slated to be taken up by the High Court today (July 27)..[Read Order]