Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; the trial court's order dated 16.05.2025 in Special Sessions Case No.1504 of 2022 set aside; the CDR to be placed on record of Special Case No.1504 of 2022 pending before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.3, Gorakhpur, and the relevant pages of the CDR to be provided to the accused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Investigating Officer's withholding of the CDR collected during the investigation — disclosed in parcha no.1 but not sent to the court with the charge sheet — and the trial court's refusal to requisition it for the accused, affect the fairness of the trial so as to warrant production of the CDR on record. +1 more

Court's answer

Withholding of the CDR by the Investigating Officer, and its non-transmission to the court along with the charge sheet, gravely affects the fairness of the trial.

Ratio / Principle

The trial court's observation about the questions being asked of witnesses on the basis of the CDR was unwarranted.

Key takeaways

The accused is at liberty to take all plausible grounds in defence, for which documents collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation could be of help in contesting his case; this is the basic precept of free and fair trial.ratio¶9
Rejection of the requisition application merely on the basis of admissibility of the document in evidence and its usefulness for the trial is a misconceived notion of law.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Avnish Saxena, J., Court No.81) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 38407 of 2025, decided 14.10.2025. Held: documents gathered by the Investigating Officer during investigation may not be withheld from the court; where parcha no.1 showed CDRs of specified mobile numbers had been collected but were neither forwarded with the charge sheet nor furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., such withholding 'gravely affects the fairness of trial'. A requisition application by the accused cannot be refused by treating the CDR as 'not an important document' for questioning witnesses, nor tested against the document's admissibility in evidence or usefulness for the trial — that is a 'misconceived notion of law'; the accused is at liberty to take all plausible grounds of defence with the aid of investigation documents, the basic precept of free and fair trial. Invoking the Supreme Court's constitutional and statutory fair-disclosure mandate noticed in Manu Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Court allowed the Section 528 BNSS application, set aside the trial court's order dated 16.05.2025 (Special Sessions Case No.1504 of 2022, arising from Case Crime No.137 of 2022, Ss.376(d) I.P.C. and Ss.5, 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Khajni, District Gorakhpur), directed that the CDR be placed on record of Special Case No.1504 of 2022 before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.3, Gorakhpur, and that relevant pages of the CDR be provided to the accused. Counsel had asserted the trial court 'incorrectly' relied on Digamber Vaishnav (AIR 2019 SC 136); this Court did not itself adjudicate that precedent.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38407 of 2025

Vinay Kumar Yadav	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Chandrake Advocate	Kumar Mishra, sh Mishra, Sr.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra and Sri Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court by order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Special Sessions Case No.1504 of 2022 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.137 of 2022, under Sections 376(d) I.P.C. and Sections 5, 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, has rejected the application of accusedapplicant moved on 02.05.2025 for requisition of CDR details, disclosed in parcha no.1 collected during the investigation, but not being placed along with the charge sheet. He further submits that the trial court has incorrectly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Digamber Vaishnav Vs. State of Chattishgarh, AIR 2019 SC 136 7 in rejecting the application. The trial court has incorrectly taken into consideration that the CDR is not an important document on the basis of which the questions would be put to the witness.

NA528 No. 38407 of 2025

2

Therefore, he seeks intervention of this Court to quash the impugned order and directs the court concerned for production of CDR to be placed on record and providing it's copy to the accused-applicant, which has not been provided to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Learned A.G.A. accepts notice for the State.

None appeared for opposite party nos.2 and 3.

There is no point in issuing notice to opposite party no.4, as the matter purely deals about withholding of documents by Investigating Officer collected during the investigation.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the application of the accusedapplicant is rightly rejected, as the same has been moved belatedly to delay the trial.

This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

There is observation made by the Supreme Court that the Investigating Officer has no right to withhold any document, particularly exculpatory in nature, which he has gathered during investigation. In the case Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed the obligation on the part of prosecution and police to disclose evidence to accused, as it is constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to accused and corresponding obligation on prosecution to make fair disclosure.

Copy of parcha no.1 annexed at page no.70 of this application clearly reveals that the copy of CDR of mobile numbers mentioned in the context of the parcha has been collected during the investigation. In such a situation, withholding of the CDR by the Investigating Officer and not sending it to the court along with the charge sheet gravely affects the fairness of trial. The learned trial court has made

NA528 No. 38407 of 2025

3

observation about the questions being asked on the basis of CDR from the witnesses, is an unwarranted observation. The accused is at liberty to take all plausible grounds in defence, for which the documents collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation could be of help to the accused for contesting his case, which is the basic precept of free and fair trial.

The trial court has rejected the application of the accusedapplicant merely on the basis of admissibility of document in evidence and how it is useful for the trial, which is misconceived notion of law.

Therefore, the application moved under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed . The order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Special Sessions Case No.1504 of 2022 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.137 of 2022, under Sections 376(d) I.P.C. and Sections 5, 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, is hereby set aside. The CDR shall be placed on record of Special Case No.1504 of 2022, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.3, Gorakhpur. The relevant pages of the CDR be provided to the accused.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

October 14, 2025 Shivangi

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad