Accused Has No Absolute Right to Copies of Unrelied Documents Before Framing of Charge; Section 91 CrPC Can Be Invoked Only for Withheld Material of ‘Sterling Quality’ Having Crucial Bearing on Charge, Though Production May Be Sought at the Appropriate Stage of Trial: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Bhagwan Dass Garg and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Date of Judgment: 18 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-46574-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an accused has no absolute or unrestricted right to obtain copies of every document collected during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution before the framing of charges. At that stage, the accused is ordinarily entitled to receive a list disclosing the unrelied documents in the investigating agency’s custody, but not necessarily copies of the documents themselves.

The Court clarified that Section 91 CrPC may be invoked at the pre-charge stage only in the exceptional situation recognised in Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin v. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy. The accused must establish that the material was collected or seized during investigation, remains in the investigating agency’s custody, has been withheld from the charge-sheet, and is of “sterling quality” with a crucial bearing on whether charges should be framed. A document does not satisfy this test merely because it is relevant to the allegations or may assist the defence.

The Court further held that denying copies at the pre-charge stage does not violate the right to a fair trial where the accused remains free to summon or seek production of those documents during the examination of prosecution witnesses, for cross-examination, or while leading defence evidence.

Summary: The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging an order of the Special Judge, CBI, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The Special Judge had set aside an earlier order of the Special Judicial Magistrate directing the CBI to supply copies of certain documents collected during investigation but not relied upon in the charge-sheet.

The prosecution arose from allegations that M/s Balak Automotives Pvt. Ltd., M/s Balak Autos Pvt. Ltd., the petitioners and other persons had committed fraud in loan accounts and caused a wrongful loss of approximately ₹28.99 crore to the Bank of India. The complaint alleged submission of false and fabricated documents and statements, diversion and round-tripping of bank funds, and other fraudulent transactions. Following investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 471 IPC and the corresponding substantive offences.

After the charge-sheet was filed, the petitioners moved an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking copies of documents that had been collected by the CBI but were not relied upon by it. These included the stock audit report, loan applications, CIBIL reports, inspection reports, valuation report, sanction letters, an enquiry report and legal opinion. The Magistrate allowed the application on 14 July 2023.

The CBI’s initial revision against that order became infructuous after the High Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the quashing order and restored the criminal proceedings. The CBI thereafter renewed its challenge to the Magistrate’s order. The Special Judge condoned a delay of 942 days, allowed the revision and set aside the direction requiring supply of the unrelied documents.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that Section 91 CrPC could be invoked even at the stage of framing charges and that the requested documents were not privately generated defence material but documents collected and retained by the CBI. Relying on Nitya Dharmananda and Kalyani Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, they contended that documents of sterling quality having a direct bearing on the framing of charges could not be withheld.

The CBI submitted that all relied-upon documents and the list of unrelied documents had already been supplied. It argued that copies of unrelied documents could not be demanded as a matter of right before the framing of charges and that Section 91 CrPC could not be employed to conduct a fishing or roving inquiry or to introduce the defence prematurely.

The High Court referred to State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, which holds that an accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 CrPC to introduce defence material at the stage of framing charges. It explained that Nitya Dharmananda created only a narrow exception for material of sterling quality withheld by the investigating agency and having a crucial bearing on the question of charge.

The Court further considered the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Sarla Gupta and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645, which distinguishes between the right to know of the existence of unrelied material and the right to obtain copies of that material before charges are framed. It held that the wider interpretation adopted in Kalyani Singh could not be treated as conferring an absolute right after the authoritative pronouncement in Sarla Gupta.

Although the documents sought by the petitioners had been collected during investigation and were in the CBI’s custody, the petitioners failed to demonstrate how each document was of sterling quality or had such a crucial bearing that it could materially affect the decision on framing charges. Their possible relevance or usefulness to the defence was insufficient to bring them within the exceptional category.

The High Court also noted that the petitioners had not been permanently denied access to the documents. They could seek their production during the trial, including for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or while presenting their defence. Regulation of the stage at which the documents could be accessed did not amount to a denial of a fair trial.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Special Judge’s order setting aside the Magistrate’s direction for supplying copies of the unrelied documents at the pre-charge stage. It found no patent illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from seeking production or summoning of the documents at the appropriate stage of trial in accordance with law.