IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.88 OF 2025
(CORAM: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
(Decided on 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026)
Shri. Surajit Ganguly …Petitioner
Versus
State of Goa & Ors. … Respondents
Criminal Procedure Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Right of Accused under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as his right to fair trial needs to be balanced keeping in mind right of privacy available to victim.
Held
If gallery of photographs and videos in respect of incident in question is supplied to accused in clone copy, possibility of its misuse mitigating privacy of victim cannot be ruled out. Although it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that dignity of victim can be protected by adopting appropriate safeguards by furnishing password protected clone copy of electronic record to petitioner and his Advocate with prohibition of publication and transmission. However, this Court finds such safeguards would not be enough with advent of technology and easy availability of tools to break through security measures. The Courts cannot compromise on protection of privacy of victim when petitioner’s right to fair trial can be balanced through other mode.
In such cases, Court may provide inspection of document to accused or his Advocate or any expert of his choice.
This Court finds, since petitioner or his Advocates are not experts, they will have to formulate questions with help of expert to be answered by Science Laboratory/Expert Agency, preferably owned or controlled by Government. In that view of matter, in present case same course can be followed as indicated in case of P. Gopalkrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 161. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, impugned order needs to be appropriately modified by partly allowing Writ Petition.
For Judgment Click 👇
Surajit Ganguly Vs. State of Goa