| I have CCTV footage that contradicts the allegations made in the FIR. Will Nashik courts consider this evidence during bail or trial proceedings? |
Yes — and in many criminal cases in Nashik, CCTV footage has been the most decisive defence evidence available, precisely because it is objective in a way that eyewitness testimony can never fully be. Whether the footage shows where you actually were, demonstrates that the incident occurred differently from what the complainant alleges, or directly contradicts a key prosecution witness, its impact in a Nashik court can be transformative.
Nashik's urban geography creates both opportunity and urgency for CCTV evidence. The commercial corridors of College Road, MG Road, Gangapur Road, and the Cidco areas; the Ambad MIDC and Satpur industrial zones; and the city's significant hotel and hospitality infrastructure along Trimbak Road and Panchavati — all carry meaningful CCTV coverage from private businesses and municipal installations. The Nashik Police Commissionerate has expanded camera coverage across key intersections. Relevant footage often exists. The critical challenge is that CCTV systems typically overwrite recordings within days — sometimes within forty-eight hours — and footage that would clear you today may be irretrievably gone next week. The moment you believe relevant footage exists, you must act: a written preservation notice to the business or authority controlling the camera, delivered the same day, is often the difference between decisive defence evidence and evidence that has vanished. Your lawyer can move a court application directing preservation where the holder is uncooperative.
The legal requirements are as important as the footage itself. Electronic evidence is now governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, and Section 63 BSA (the successor to Section 65B of the Evidence Act) imposes a mandatory certificate requirement — without which the footage is generally inadmissible. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, and these rulings apply in Nashik's courts and before the Bombay HC. Getting the Section 63 BSA certificate, verifying the chain of custody, and establishing the accuracy of the system clock are all essential alongside securing the footage itself. The criminal defence advocates at the Nashik panel of Aapka Legal Advice can take every necessary step to preserve, certify, and present CCTV evidence effectively before the Nashik courts.
