The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the power to summon an additional accused under Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not a routine procedural tool but a discretionary power requiring substantial, cogent evidence - far exceeding mere suspicion or prima facie appearance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Anil Sindal, sought to implicate his nephew, Satish Sindal, as an additional accused in a case involving assault, robbery, and criminal intimidation under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 304(2), and 3(5) of the BNSS, 2023. The original FIR named only three accused: Ajay Sindal, Tinku Jatwa, and Ayush Shrivastava. The police filed a closure report against Satish Sindal, concluding no evidence linked him to the incident.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple stages:
- 01.09.2024: Alleged incident occurred near Saint Meera Krishna Kunj School, Ujjain.
- 04.09.2024: FIR registered by Subham Sindal, who was not present at the scene.
- 24.02.2025: Sessions Court took cognizance against the three accused under Section 213 BNSS.
- 14.07.2025: Petitioner’s application under Section 358 BNSS for summoning Satish Sindal rejected.
- 02.06.2025: Petitioner examined as PW-1, reiterating allegations against Satish Sindal.
- 03.07.2025: Second application under Section 358 BNSS rejected by the trial court.
- 04.02.2026: Criminal revision filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought to have Satish Sindal summoned as an additional accused, arguing that his statements, the FIR, and circumstantial evidence - including CCTV footage and alleged inconsistencies in police investigation - established a case against him.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the evidence adduced before the trial court met the threshold under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 to justify summoning an additional accused, or whether the standard required by Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab had been misapplied.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that his own testimony as PW-1, the FIR, and the CCTV footage collectively indicated Satish Sindal’s presence and participation. He argued that Satish Sindal was seen recording the assault, preventing escape, and was part of the group that seized valuables. He further alleged that the police failed to verify the house’s two entrances, ignored tower location data, and delayed recovery of CCTV footage, suggesting a deliberate attempt to exonerate Satish Sindal. Reliance was placed on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that a prima facie case existed.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the investigation was thorough and impartial. The police identified and charged three actual perpetrators whose involvement was corroborated by CCTV footage. Satish Sindal’s name was absent from the initial eyewitness account and not mentioned in the post-incident statements. The State emphasized that the absence of any visual or forensic evidence placing Satish Sindal at the scene rendered the application speculative. The closure report was justified, and the trial court’s refusal to summon was legally sound.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, particularly the CCTV footage from Saint Meera Krishna Kunj School, which was central to the petitioner’s claim. The footage, recovered on 09.09.2024, clearly showed the presence and actions of Ajay, Tinku, and Ayush at the location and time of the incident. Crucially, it did not depict Satish Sindal at any point.
The Court emphasized that Section 358 BNSS mirrors the erstwhile Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the standard for invoking it is not merely a prima facie case, but one that is substantially stronger. As held in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the evidence must be such that, if unrebutted, it would likely lead to conviction - not just suggest complicity.
"The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction."
The Court found that the petitioner’s testimony was uncorroborated by any independent evidence. The FIR, filed hours after the incident by a non-witness, was inconsistent with the physical evidence. The claim that Satish Sindal was recording the incident was unsupported by any digital metadata or video evidence. The Court also noted that the police’s failure to investigate certain leads did not, by itself, establish guilt.
The Court concluded that the trial court correctly applied the Hardeep Singh standard and that the petitioner’s arguments amounted to speculation, not the strong and cogent evidence required.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court held that Section 358 BNSS cannot be invoked on the basis of suspicion, inconsistent statements, or unverified allegations. The evidence presented fell short of the heightened threshold required to summon an additional accused, and the trial court’s refusal was legally justified.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Summoning Additional Accused Is Not a Default Remedy
- Practitioners must now demonstrate strong, corroborated evidence - not just allegations or circumstantial inferences - to invoke Section 358 BNSS.
- Applications based solely on FIR content or uncorroborated witness testimony will be dismissed.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the proposed accused’s involvement is evident from the evidence already on record, not from what might be inferred.
Electronic Evidence Must Be Authenticated and Analyzed
- CCTV footage, if relied upon, must be properly recovered, preserved, and timestamped.
- Gaps in footage or delays in recovery will not be presumed to indicate tampering without concrete proof.
- The absence of an accused in electronic evidence is a decisive factor against summoning.
Investigative Lapses Do Not Automatically Imply Bias
- Failure to investigate every possible lead does not equate to malice or concealment.
- Courts will not infer guilt from investigative omissions unless there is clear evidence of intentional suppression.
- The burden remains on the applicant to prove complicity, not on the State to disprove every alternative theory.
