Srinagar, Nov 13: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld a trial court order rejecting an accused’s plea for continuous audio-video recording of his custodial interrogation in an NDPS case, ruling that Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not provide an unconditional right to record every interrogation.

However, the court clarified that police must comply with statutory requirements for audio-video recording of searches and seizures and the Supreme Court’s directions on CCTV surveillance in police stations.
Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a petition filed by Manzoor Ahmad Banday, observing that apprehensions of false implication or coercion, without supporting material, cannot by themselves justify a direction for continuous recording of interrogation.
“The petitioner cannot invoke Section 105 of the BNSS as an independent source of an unconditional right to demand continuous audio-video recording of his interrogation,” the court observed.
Banday had challenged an October 24 order of the trial court rejecting his application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. He had sought recording of his custodial interrogation, preservation of CCTV footage relating to his alleged arrest and custody, and compliance with Section 105 during any further search or seizure.
The petitioner alleged that police took him into custody on October 20, 2026, in the presence of his family, but officially showed his arrest a day later at PDD Colony, Baramulla. He also apprehended that the agency could fabricate a recovery or obtain an incriminating disclosure through coercion.
His counsel argued that the safeguards under the BNSS and the Supreme Court’s directions on CCTV cameras in police stations required greater transparency in the investigation.
The case relates to FIR No. 214/2025 registered at Police Station Baramulla under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case originated from the alleged recovery of 540 grams of heroin from Tahir Ahmad Khan and 424 grams from Sobia Bano at the GMC Parking Area, Baramulla.
During investigation, the accused allegedly disclosed that the contraband had been supplied by Mohammad Ubaid Raja. Police later claimed that further investigation revealed the alleged involvement of Banday and another accused, Shahid Qayoom alias Sameer, in supplying the narcotics consignment.
The High Court observed that investigation into cognisable offences primarily falls within the domain of the investigating agency, but its powers are not absolute and must be exercised fairly and in accordance with law.
It clarified that an accused cannot dictate the course of an investigation but can insist that statutory and constitutional safeguards are respected.
Examining Section 105 of the BNSS, the court held that the provision specifically mandates audio-video recording of search and seizure proceedings, including the preparation of seizure lists, and cannot be extended to cover every question and answer during custodial interrogation.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others (AIR 2021 SC 64), which laid down directions for CCTV surveillance in police stations to ensure transparency and protect the rights of persons in custody.
The High Court reiterated that these directions remain binding on police authorities and dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s order.