Successive Applications U/s 207 CrPC For Records Not Barred: Delhi Court Allows Devangana Kalita's Plea

While dealing with a plea moved by Delhi riots accused Devangana Kalita seeking copy of electronic evidence against her in the case, a Delhi Court on Monday observed that it is not correct for the Prosecution to say that successive application under Section 207 of CrPC cannot be moved by the accused.

The provision contemplates supply of copy of police report and other documents to the accused.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was dealing with an urgent hearing application moved by Kalita with regards to an earlier application dated 8th April 2021 under Section 207 CrPC seeking copies of the electronic records relied upon by the Prosecution in the matter.

"..the interpretation of Section 207 Cr.P.C must be made considering the purpose for which it is enacted, in other words from accused's stand point. Thus, it would not be correct for the prosecution to contend that successive applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C cannot be moved," the Court said.

Furthermore, it was observed thus:

"After supply of the charge-sheet and the documents, which run into thousands of pages, there can be occasions where at greater scrutiny, the Ld. Counsel for the accused may notice certain deficiencies which can then be remedied under Section 207 Cr.P.C."

However, the Court clarified that the accused should move such an application after adequately perusing the entire chargesheet and pointing out some deficiency.

"If still further deficiencies are noted, another application may be moved. However, it is not a healthy practice to move an application asking for only one set of documents while keeping the option of moving another application open and thereafter, move other application as regards other documents. Be that it may be, any application under Section 207 Cr.P.C must be dealt with on merits," the Court said at the outset.

The application was vehemently opposed by SPP Amit Prasad who had submitted that the application was just an attempt to stifle and delay the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in which no counter affidavit was filed by Kalita.

Moreover, it was argued that since Kalita has also moved the Delhi High Court in relation to the video footage for riots case, there is a chance of conflict in orders. It was thus submitted that Kalita had not come to the Court with clean hands.

It is pertinent to note that the Delhi Police had approached the Supreme Court challenging the bail granted to Kalita by the High Court last month. The Supreme Court had then issued notice in the plea and additionally said that the impugned judgment shall not be be treated as a precedent until the matter is finally decided.

On the other hand, Advocate Adit S Pujari appearing for Kalita argued that there is a right of the accused to be heard and that there was no forum shopping being done in the matter.

Hearing the submissions, the Court allowed urgent hearing for Section 207 CrPC application. 

"The application dated 8th April 2021 has to be decided on merits. Let it be posted for arguments on 30th July," the Court directed.

"Applicant can't be precluded from filing the present application or the Court can't be stopped from deciding the present application if there is already a petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in relation to FIR No. 50/20, PS. Jafrabad and there is no finding or ratio of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding said video footage. On this count, contending that the applicant has come to the court without clean hands is devoid of merit. Hence, this submission has no legs to stand on," the Court observed.

The Delhi High Court in its judgments dated 15th June found that offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) were prima facie not made out against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Going by the allegations in the chargesheet, the accused were only leading protests. The High Court said that there was no specific or particularized allegations against the accused relating to terrorist activities.

The High Court also observed that right to protest cannot be termed as 'terrorist act' under the UAPA.

The Delhi Police had filed a chargesheet against them alleging that the protests organized by them against the Citizenship Amendment Act from December 2019 were part of a "larger conspiracy" behind the North East Delhi communal riots which took place in the last week of February 2020.

However, the High Court Bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, after a preliminary analysis of the chargesheet, observed that the allegations did not prima facie constitute the alleged UAPA offences relating to terrorist activities (Sections 15,17 and 18).

Consequently, the Division Bench stated that the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA against the grant of bail was not attracted against the accused, and hence they were entitled to grant of bail under the ordinary principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"Since we are of the view that no offence under sections 15, 17 or 18 UAPA is made-out against the appellant on a prima facie appreciation of the subject charge-sheet and the material collected and cited by the prosecution, the additional limitations and restrictions for grant of bail under section 43D(5) UAPA do not apply; and the court may therefore fall back upon the usual and ordinary considerations for bail under the Cr.P.C".

Title: State v. Tahir Hussain (Devangana Kalita)