S.230 BNSS | AP High Court Quashes UAPA Charges Against Accused Citing Non-Service Of Witness Statements, Remits Matter Back To Trial Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has remitted four criminal appeals– two challenging dismissal of discharge applications and the other two challenging framing of charges –back to the trial court in a UAPA case, after noting that statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the accused. A division bench Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V Sujatha in its order noted that admittedly from July 1, 2024 the BNSS replaced the CrPC. The court observed that sessions case was numbered as S.C.No.11 of 2023, the BNSS had come into force; but the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 139 of 2025 filed discharge applications, under Section 227 Cr.P.C.The court noted that both discharge applications were dismissed on 06.01.2025 and 31.12.2024, noting that as per Section 531(2) if any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation was pending on the date of BNSS 2023, came into force, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of CrPC. The bench without entering the merits of the matter, noted that admittedly as per the parties, the statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the appellants in four criminal appeals which was required under Section 230 (Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents) BNSS."Once the statements were not supplied to the accused as per the provisions of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the further proceedings would be vitiated. Of course, in all these judgments referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that serious prejudice would be caused for nonsupply of the documents, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, akin to Section 207 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the accused were seriously prejudiced by non-supply of statements of protected witnesses to them. The learned Special Judge, while dismissing the discharge applications, referred to the statements of protected witnesses in his order. As such, in the considered view of this Court that the appellants have no opportunity to look into the statements of the protected witnesses. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court that, all the appellants were prejudiced by non-supply of the statements of the protected witnesses, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023".The court also noted that appellants in two criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos.110 and 169 of 2025) had filed the same directly challenging the framing of charges without being supplied statements of protected witnesses, as required under Section 230 BNSS."In view of the above analyses and in view of the above facts and circumstances, the charges framed by the learned Special Judge against appellants after dismissing the discharge applications dehors supplying the statements of the protected witnesses as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are liable to be set aside and all the matters are necessarily be remitted back to the learned Special Judge for NIA cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for commencement of the case from the stage of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023," it said. Background:The case originates from a charge sheet filed by the National Investigation Agency in 2021, against 84 accused under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including Sections 120-B(criminal conspiracy), 143(unlawful assembly), 144(joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 124(a) read with 149(common object) IPC, provisions of Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act and Arms Act. Accused no. 60 and 46 challenged the charges framed against them, without being given the statements of the protected witnesses. Similarly, accused no. 80 and 84 filed discharge applications on the same ground. The trial court dismissed the discharge applications on the ground that they were filed under a Statute which was no longer in force (CrPc).Before the High Court, the accused relied on multiple Supreme Court judgements to argue that non-supply of documents mandated by statute would vitiate further proceedings. It was also emphasised that non-supply was not disputed. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the accused were supplied with truncated copies of the statements, so as to protect the identity of the protected witnesses. It was argued that revealing the identity of the protected witnesses could jeopardize their safety. An issue was also raised regarding filing the applications under CrpC when the BNSS was in force.Disposing of the appeals at the admission stage, the bench dismissed the charges framed by the trial court with a direction to "supply the statements of the protected witnesses, to all the accused in Sessions Case No.11 of 2023, pending on its file without disclosing the...

S.230 BNSS | AP High Court Quashes UAPA Charges Against Accused Citing Non-Service Of Witness Statements, Remits Matter Back To Trial Court

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags