YouTube
Print
September 05 2025CCTV FOOTAGE ON MOBILE PHONES IN COURT HEARINGS: AN ANALYSIS
The question of whether it is legally sound for an Investigating Officer (IO) to show CCTV footage on a mobile phone during bail arguments in the High Court raises important issues of admissibility, procedure, and judicial discretion. In a recent instance, a status report stated: “The entire incident narrated above was captured on CCTV camera already installed on the spot. IO has shown me the said CCTV footage in his mobile phone, described with timelines in the status report filed by prosecution side.” This practice, while pragmatic, requires careful scrutiny under Indian law.
EVIDENCE LAW AND SECTION 65B Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, electronic evidence such as CCTV recordings is governed by Section 65B. The Supreme Court, in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and reaffirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), has held that electronic evidence is admissible only if accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4), confirming the authenticity of the device and the process of production. Without such certification, the footage cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence during trial. Thus, a video clip shown on a mobile phone by an IO, without certification, cannot be the foundation of a conviction. BAIL PROCEEDINGS AND JUDICIAL DISCRETION However, bail proceedings stand on a different footing. Courts have consistently maintained that bail hearings are not full-fledged trials but rather assessments of prima facie material. The Delhi High Court in Aslam v. State (2021) considered CCTV footage at the bail stage to understand the sequence of events, while clarifying that admissibility would be tested at trial. Similarly, the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) observed that courts may consider “broad probabilities” and material placed by the prosecution to evaluate whether bail should be granted. Therefore, showing CCTV footage on a mobile phone may not be “bad in law” in bail hearings, as the judge is merely assessing whether sufficient grounds exist to link the accused to the offence. ILLUSTRATIONS AND PRACTICAL EXAMPLES Consider, for instance, a case of mob violence where CCTV footage allegedly shows the presence of an accused near the scene. At the bail stage, the prosecution may show the clip on a laptop or mobile device to establish prima facie involvement. The court, while not treating the clip as conclusive evidence, may still refuse bail on the ground of apparent presence. In another example, during protests, police often rely on surveillance footage; courts have permitted reliance on such preliminary viewing to assess the seriousness of allegations. Yet, at trial, unless the footage is extracted from the DVR system and certified under Section 65B, the same clip would not be admissible to secure a conviction. LIMITS OF SUCH RELIANCE The defence, on the other hand, may argue that footage shown casually on a mobile phone risks manipulation, lacks certification, and prejudices the accused. Courts have acknowledged this concern, which is why judicial orders granting or denying bail based on such material often emphasize that the findings are prima facie and will not influence the trial. This safeguard maintains the balance between prosecutorial needs and the rights of the accused. CONCLUSION In sum, while the strict rules of admissibility under the Evidence Act do not apply at the bail stage, courts may allow the IO to show CCTV footage on a mobile device to form a preliminary impression of the case. Such reliance is valid only for the limited purpose of deciding bail and does not substitute the legal requirement of producing certified electronic evidence at trial. The practice, therefore, is not “bad in law” provided it is treated as an aid to judicial discretion rather than conclusive proof of guilt. __________________________ DATE OF DECISION:03.09.2025 CASE NUMBER:BAIL APPLN. 1614/2025
Author
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District CourtsLL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University
Comments are not allowed on this article.
