Dismissed¶27

Abhishek Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2025CRLR/1472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge application rejected at charge-framing stage; documents and Instagram chats outside the investigation inadmissible at that stage; Criminal Revision under Ss. 397/401 CrPC dismissed; POCSO Act, Lakhimpur Kheri; S. 215 BNSS / erstwhile S. 227 CrPC; victim's Ss. 161/164 CrPC statements supporting prosecution version; expedited bail hearing per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; direction given that if the revisionist appears before the learned trial court and presses his bail application, it shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, in light of the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773. ¶27

Abhishek Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether electronic records (Instagram chats) and other documents allegedly produced by the accused but not made part of the investigation can be considered at the stage of framing of charge in deciding the discharge application. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Documents/electronic records allegedly tendered by or for the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge unless they have been made part of the investigation; the trial court rightly observed that any such evidence may be considered at the stage of evidence. The High Court found force in the A.G.A.'s submissions on this point.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

No illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order of the learned trial court dismissing the discharge application filed by the revisionist.

¶26

Key takeaways

In light of the prayer of the revisionist's counsel, it was directed that in case the revisionist appears before the learned trial court and presses his bail application, the same shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, in light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under Ss. 397/401 CrPC filed by the accused (Abhishek Gupta) against the judgment/order dated 03.12.2025 of the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lakhimpur Kheri (Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.531 of 2024, arising out of case crime no.1221/2023, Ss. 354 (ka), 354 (gha), 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, PS Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri) dismissing his discharge application. The High Court held that electronic records (Instagram chats) and other documents allegedly produced by the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge unless made part of the investigation, such material falling to be examined at the evidence stage; it found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which also recorded that the victim had supported the prosecution version in her statements under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC. Revision dismissed, with a direction that the accused's bail application be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law per the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1472 of 2025

Abhishek Gupta

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : J.B. Singh, Vineet Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

¶10

Instant Criminal Revision under section 397/401 CrPC has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.531 of 2024 "State vs. Abhishek Gupta", arising out of case crime no.1221/2023, under sections - 354 (ka), 354 (gha), 506 IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act registered at police station - Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶11

By the impugned order learned court below has dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionist/ accused.

¶12

According to the prosecution version in present case informant lodged an FIR against the revisionist on 19.12.2023 on the basis of written report with allegations that his minor daughter aged 14 years studies in Class IX in a local school. Accused Abhishek Gupta used to stalk her. He used to touch her in inappropriate manner and when she raises objection he threatens to make her photographs and videos viral on internet. It is also stated that the family members of accused are Journalist and they are exerting pressure for compromise.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that no evidence as provided under section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been produced in support of the allegation that the victim is minor. In fact, her age is 19 years but same has been concealed by the prosecution. He also submitted that during investigation Investigating officer has not collected evidence which could prove innocence of the revisionist. Even the revisionist has provided some photographs, social media chats as well as love

¶14

CRLR No. 1472 of 2025

¶15

¶16

letters written by the alleged victim in her own handwriting which show his innocence but the Investigating Officer has not taken the same and not made it part of the investigation.

¶17

The chats as mentioned in the impugned order itself shows that it is, in fact, a case of extortion on the part of the informant. Revisionist has committed no offence.

¶18

Learned Special Judge has dismissed the application for discharge without considering the grounds taken in discharge application in proper perspective.

¶19

It is stated that accused has produced before the Court the extracts of his instagram chats occurred between accused and victim in which victim has admitted in such chats that money lent by the accused to a friend has been received back. Some photos and other documents were made available to the Investigating Officer but he has not added in charge sheet. It was also contended on behalf of accused before the trial court that if the said documents could have been made part of the charge sheet then no charge sheet could be filed.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that learned trial court in its impugned order has duly considered pleas and contentions made on behalf of the accused and considered the scope of Section 215 BNSS which is alternative of erstwhile section 227 CrPC. It is further submitted that it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge any document produced by the accused which has not been made part of the investigation, cannot be considered for the purpose of discharging the accused.

¶21

Learned trial court has rightly observed that these instagram chats or any document pleaded in the application for discharge may be considered at the stage of evidence.

¶22

I find force in the submissions of learned A.G.A. whether the instagram chats relied upon by the revisionist were produced before the Investigating Officer by the accused or victim, it is not material unless the same has been made part of investigation as admittedly the electronic records allegedly produced before the Investigating Officer to prove innocence of the revisionist are not made part of the investigation, therefore, learned trial court has rightly observed that any such evidence cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

¶23

It is also stated in the impugned order that the victim has supported prosecution version in her statement under section 161 and 164 CrPC and she has stated against the accused revisionist in the said statements.

¶24

CRLR No. 1472 of 2025

¶25

¶26

I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist is dismissed.

¶27

Revision is dismissed . However, in light of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist it is directed that in case revisionist appears before the learned trial court and presses his bail application, the same shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law in light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶28

December 19, 2025 mks

¶29

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Deepu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mohan @ Mohan Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Paswan vs Sudha

Syam Krishna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Subhash @ Subhash Chandr vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others