“Unrelied” documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evident by the prosecution.

The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue Special CBI Court Order, which had stated that court will proceed with the arguments on the charges “Once the Apon Digital Evidence Copy and List of Urds ARE. to the accused individuals ”.

The Trial Court had reasonsed that “as the CBI must Provide Copies of Relied-Upon Digital Data Current with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), This Court can Hear Argments on Charges on Chargen. Relied-Upon Documents must be available to the accused before charges “.

It had directed that “All notices under section 91/160 CRPC and Written Communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/Documents received by CBI Concerning. Notices/writen communications, must be insured in the list of urds if cbi do not intend to rely on their trial “.

Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) Empowers Police Officers to Summon Individuals to Assist in the probe.

Directing that the list of urds should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, The Trial Court had made that the infestigating officer (io) “Shall Fle and Affidavit Confirming. Such Notice/Communication/Document is omitted from the relieved-ups documents or the urd “.

Opposing the direction to the io, the CBI, while the arguing before justice ravinder dudeja, also oppsed the direction that is issued to and statements made by the accused under sections 160 of crpc – before consoled. To be an accused in the case – be considering a part of urds.

The CBI’s Council Told HC, “We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entry data to be given … Crpc sections 91 and 160 are tosting, how can it be Given? Part of the evident collected. “

“There can be a procedure in the delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (io of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrellyed communication/nothes/nothes). Have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as business are also accused in the case)… there are privacy concerns… inter se, conflict of privacy in urd not stall the trial,

Further Opply of CRPC Section 160 Notices and Statements of Accused Prior to That Being Made Accused, The CBI Added, “Once They Made Accused, This State is not participant. Unrelied Upon Documents, Secuse Those Statements Can Also Trample Upon Something’s Right to Self-Incrimination. “

Justice Dudeja, However, Asked The CBI’s Counsel, “… First Instance If you are not going to rely on Such Statements you can Provide the List (of Urds)? “

While CBI contended that if if there is included in the list of urds, “It will be seen by everybody else”, justice dudeja orally responded, “show they … what is the fire … what is the prejudice to you in you. The copies of the not the crpc section 160?

The CBI contended, “It is not about Fear, it’s about what is relevant and not… (if the trial court’s directions are upheld) What will be coming a PISTICE (of Including Crpc Section 160 NOTS). Not exist at all… it is a roving inquiry. “

A defense advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, Contended Before the Court, “The Fear is the Entire Frivolous Investigation They have done will come all out in the open. Documents… Thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court. “

Another Defense Advocate, Adit Pujari, Added, “This is a bogey being played (by CBI) … that support of the list is going to delay arguments on …”

While an order is awaited, justice dudeja indicated that court is not inclined to Stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the cbi’s peetition comic.

The court also indicated that it is agreable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial course.