By way of background, a first information report was lodged in 2020 against one Syed Naveed Mushtaq under the UAPA, Explosive Substances and Arms Acts.
Thereafter, the NIA took over the probe and registered another FIR. The appellant Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra was charged as an accused under the NIA FIR and by a supplementary chargesheet, he was arrayed as accused no 11 in the primary offence.
Later, under another FIR by the State on the same facts as the NIA, the appellant was arrayed as the sole accused.
The trial court by an order of June 1, 2021 declared five prosecution witnesses as protected witnesses, and their statements were kept in a sealed cover.
An application under Section 207 of the CrPC was filed by the appellant before the trial court praying for a redacted copy of the statements of the five protected witnesses.
State had contended that Section 207 CrPC was conditional upon Section 173 CrPC and could not supersede it. The right of the accused to be supplied with all material as envisaged under Section 207 CrPC could thus not be inferred to be absolute, the State urged.
The trial court on September 11, 2021 allowed the application of appellant observing that in view of Section 44, UAPA, and Sections 207 and 173(6), CrPC, the prosecution was duty bound to provide the copies of the statements of the five protected witnesses to the accused in order to provide a fair trial.
It, however, directed that the identities of the protected witnesses be redacted.
On appeal, the High Court of Jammu & Kasmhir and Ladakh favoured the State and held that the trial court having allowed the plea of protected witnesses and directing their testimonies to be kept in a sealed cover, permitting copies of redacted statements would amount to revisiting and reviewing its own orders, which was not permissible.
The High Court held that the same would expose the protected witnesses to vulnerability.
This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Source: Barandbench
