The trial concerned serial bomb blasts that occurred in Bangalore on July 25, 2008, resulting in multiple injuries and one fatality. Several FIRs were registered at different Police Stations for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 123, 153A, 302, 307, 326, 337, 435, 506, & 201 of the IPC14, Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A laptop, an external hard drive, three pen drives, five floppies, thirteen CDs, six SIM cards, three mobile phones, one memory card, two digital cameras, and other electronic devices were seized at the instance of accused number 3, during the course of the investigation. The additional chargesheet dated June 9, 2010, and the original electronic devices were presented to the Trial Court. With reference to the electronic devices, the CFSL Report dated November 29, 2010, was ruled inadmissible in evidence by the Trial Court on April 7, 2017, in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act. A certificate under Section 65-B of the Act was acquired, and when M. Krishna (PW-189) was examined in chief on April 27, 2017, a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act was requested to be produced. The Trial Court ruled on 20.06.2017 that the certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Act and produced on 27.04.2017 was inadmissible as evidence. Following that, an application was made in court to allow the prosecution to recall M. Krishna (PW-189) and to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act in evidence. The Trial Court rejected the application, stating that there was delay in filing the application. Aggrieved by the decision of trial court, the high court was approached. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision.

The Apex Court observed that Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot- free and no innocent should be punished. A certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and permitted the prosecution to recall the witness under Section 311 CrPC to produce the 65B Certificate. The Supreme Court reiterated that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove electronic evidence can be produced at any stage of the trial.