S. 105 BNSS | Police Must Videograph Search & Seizure Or Face Disciplinary Action: High Court Directs UP DGP To Issue SOP

While granting bail to an accused in a theft case involving the alleged recovery of 40 motorcycles, a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 105 BNSS creates a doubt over the entire prosecution story.

The bench added that the law was enacted to protect innocent persons from wrongful implication and to ensure foolproof evidence for trial. It went a step further and observed that non-compliance with the provision by police officials may give rise to disciplinary proceedings.

Case in brief

One Shadab was booked under Sections 305(2) and 317(2) BNS on the allegations that he, along with four other co-accused were involved in the theft of 40 motorcycles and the said number of bikes were found in their joint possession.

Seeking bail in the case, his counsel argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR and, despite the alleged massive recovery, there was no private witness or videography of the proceedings.

It was contended that videography of recovery is compulsory as per Section 105 BNSS and its absence creates doubt over the prosecution's narrative.

It was also highlighted that co-accused persons had already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of the High Court.

High Court's observations

Having perused the record, Justice Deshwa noted that in the present case, the UP police had indeed failed to conduct any videography of the recovery of the motorcycles or the preparation of the seizure list.

The Court observed that under Section 105 BNSS, read with Rule 18 of the UP Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, recording the process via the E-Sakshya app or other electronic means is mandatory.

The Court added thus:

"This fact shows not only the negligence but arbitrariness on the part of police which creates doubt over the prosecution story regarding the recovery of seized articles..."

The Court also emphasized that Section 105 BNSS was explicitly designed to prevent the plantation of false recovery by certain police officials and to generate credible legal material for a fair trial.

Reading Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the UP BNSS Rules, the bench noted that the video recording of the search or seizure process should be made part of the case diary and the same shall be sent to the Magistrate within 48 hours.

The Bench further noted that while the DGP had issued a circular on July 21, 2025 regarding the mandatory nature of such recordings, a detailed SOP as required by Rule 18(5) was yet to be issued in coordination with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

The bench also highlighted it had come across several cases where an independent witness could not be found regarding recovery and even then, an audio-video recording was not conducted.

Against this backdrop, the single judge issued the following directions to the DGP:

• Issue a detailed SOP as required by Rule 18(5) for mandatorily conducting audio-video recording of search, seizure and preparation of seizure lists on the E-Sakshya portal or via mobile phones.
• Issue a direction that failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 105 BNSS r/w Rule 18 UP BNSS Rules may attract disciplinary proceedings against the concerned police officer

The Court reasoned that strict enforcement is necessary, on the one hand, to "save innocent persons from false implication" and, on the other, to prepare evidence that withstands scrutiny during bail hearings and trials.

Against this backdrop, considering the non-compliance with the mandatory videography provisions, the overcrowded jails and the grounds of parity with co-accused, the Court allowed the bail application.

The applicant, Shadab, was ordered released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.