Divyanshu Maurya vs State of U.P.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though allegation of enticing away the victim girl has been made against co-accused Deepak and so far as present applicant is concerned, he was assigned the role of helping the co-accused Deepak. In the statement of victim girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she stated that when she left her house for school then co-accused Deepak and present applicant made her smell something and took her away from the school. Learned counsel for the applicant shows CCTV footage dated 24.10.2025 at 6.45 a.m. showing that the victim girl herself came on the road and boarded a tempo. It is further submitted that father of the applicant has also shown this video to police but police neither taken the video nor collected the same footage from Shanti Nursing Home as well as business establishment adjacent to road.

From perusal of record, prima facie , its appears that the statement of victim girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS is contrary to the CCTV footage which showing the victim girl herself left her school and boarded the tempo.

Therefore, this Court directs the Investigating Officer of the case to appear in person before this Court along with record and explain as to why he has not collected the CCTV footage of cameras stalled adjacent to

BAIL No. 43157 of 2025

2

road (place of incident) showing kidnapping or running away of the victim girl.

This Court also directs that the first informant namely Lakhi Lal son of Sri Ramdev shall appear in person before this Court along with the victim girl, on the next date fixed.

The Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh is directed to ensure the presence of the Investigating Officer of this case as well as first informant along with victim girl, on the next date of listing.

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the S.P., Azamgarh.

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶20

December 8, 2025 A.Kr.

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Divyanshu Maurya v. State of U.P.