“Fair Trial Does Not Mean Accused Can Demand Every Document”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Production of CBI Status Report Outside Charge-Sheet in 1994 Alleged Fake Encounter Trial

Case Name: Amarjit Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026

Citation: CRM-M No. 42121 of 2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the right to a fair trial does not confer an absolute entitlement upon an accused to demand the production of every document that he considers useful for cross-examination. Under Section 91 CrPC, the power to summon a document is discretionary, and the court must be satisfied that its production is necessary or desirable for the proceedings, having regard to its relevance, nature and the stage of the trial.

The obligation to provide a list of documents and material objects collected during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution does not extend automatically to a document that was never made part of the investigation record or charge-sheet in the particular criminal case. A document does not become a relied-upon or unrelied-upon prosecution document merely because an investigating officer refers to it during his testimony.

The Court clarified that an accused enjoys a stronger statutory right to seek production of documents upon entering defence under Sections 233(3) and 243(2) CrPC. If a document produced at the defence stage necessitates further cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the accused may seek recall of that witness under Section 311 CrPC. Therefore, refusal to summon a document during prosecution evidence does not necessarily impair the accused’s right to defend himself at the appropriate stage.

The Court also emphasised that the right of an accused to a fair trial must be balanced against the equally important requirement that a decades-old criminal trial should conclude without avoidable interruption. Where the accused failed to demonstrate the relevance or necessity of a CBI status report submitted before the Supreme Court in separate proceedings and never included in the charge-sheet, the Trial Court was justified in refusing its production.

Summary: The proceedings arose from an investigation entrusted to the CBI by the Supreme Court concerning the alleged illegal detention and subsequent killing of four persons, Balwinder Singh alias Baju, Balwinder Singh alias Kala, Harjinder Singh alias Rana and Saroop Singh alias Suba, by Punjab Police officials in January 1994.

It was alleged that the four persons had been taken into custody from different places in District Gurdaspur and were subsequently killed in a fake encounter on January 25, 1994. Following the Supreme Court’s order dated August 30, 1994, the CBI registered a regular case for offences including murder, abduction, wrongful confinement, fabrication of official records and criminal conspiracy.

After investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet against 28 accused on May 31, 1996 under Sections 302, 364, 218, 120-B and 34 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court in November 1996, and charges were framed in September 1997. Owing to various stays and subsequent proceedings, the trial remained pending for several decades and was still at the stage of prosecution evidence. The Investigating Officer, examined as PW-34, had remained under cross-examination since July 2024.

During the trial, the petitioner sought production of a CBI status report dated December 11, 1995, which had been submitted before the Supreme Court pursuant to its directions. He contended that PW-34 had referred to the report in his deposition and that access to it was necessary for effective cross-examination and protection of his right to a fair trial under Article 21.

The CBI opposed the request on the ground that the status report was an internal document submitted before the Supreme Court. It had neither been annexed to the charge-sheet nor included among the relied-upon or unrelied-upon documents in the criminal case. The CBI also submitted that a certified copy could be sought from the Supreme Court. Four CFSL reports separately requested by the defence had already been supplied.

The Trial Court rejected the request. After an earlier remand by the High Court for fresh consideration, the Trial Court reconsidered the matter and again dismissed the application on May 28, 2025. The accused challenged that order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The High Court examined the distinction between the statutory supply of documents under Section 207 CrPC and discretionary production under Section 91 CrPC. It observed that Section 207 covers the police report, FIR, witness statements and other documents forwarded with the police report. It does not require automatic supply of every document that may at some stage have come into the investigating agency’s possession.

Referring to Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 10 SCC 598, and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Court recognised that an accused must be informed of material seized or collected during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution. The accused may then seek production of any such material considered necessary for a fair trial. However, this right is not unqualified and depends upon the relevance of the material and the stage of proceedings.

The Court distinguished decisions such as V.K. Sasikala v. State, where the documents sought were in the court’s custody and had a demonstrated bearing upon the defence. In the present case, the disputed status report had been submitted to the Supreme Court in separate proceedings and had never formed part of the charge-sheet or the record of the criminal trial.

Reliance was also placed upon Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement to clarify that an accused has a stronger right to summon documents when entering upon defence. That stage had not yet arrived. The petitioner’s right to seek the report during defence evidence, or to seek recall of a prosecution witness if necessary thereafter, remained unaffected.

Considering that the FIR dated back to 1994, the charge-sheet to 1996 and the framing of charges to 1997, the Court also found it necessary to prevent further avoidable disruption of the trial. The petitioner had failed to explain specifically how the status report was necessary for cross-examining PW-34 or for a just adjudication of the case.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, refusing to bring the CBI status report dated December 11, 1995 on record. The Court found no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion.