Faizan @ Bablu vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs:-

"i. Set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No.1, Moradabad in Sessions Case No.11 of 2025 (State vs. Faizan @ Bablu and others) arising out of Case Crime No.490 of 2024, under Section 376, 354, 384, 506 I.P.C. & 67(a) of IT Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad.

ii. Direct the learned concerned court that the copies disc/pen-drive which are still in sealed condition may be furnished to the applicant-petitioner, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury, and/or pass such and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the accused and the petitioner has filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the pen-drive containing the video may be provided to the petitioner. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and another, 2020 (9) SCC 161.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the right of the accused to have served all the documents. The trial court by the impugned order dated 6.10.2025 has rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the material contained in the CD, which already extracted in the case diary. The case diary would be a secondary evidence insofar as the pen-drive is concerned when the primary evidence is required to be served on the petitioner.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the petition and submits that the present case arises out of offence under Sections 376, 354, 384, 506 I.P.C. & 67(a) of IT Act, and it is alleged that the petitioner has made video of the victim, which is part of the pen-drive and, therefore, the aforesaid document cannot be supplied.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 6.10.2025 would go to show that such a finding has not been recorded by the trial court. The only finding is recorded that once the video contained in the pen-drive has been extracted in the case diary, therefore, it is not required to be given. Such finding is not sustainable under law and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 6.10.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for decision afresh. While deciding the issue afresh, the trial court shall record a finding that in case there is any material pertaining to the victim, which would not be in the interest of justice to be given to the accused, then the trial court can deny the same. Otherwise, the trial court shall consider the application for giving the contents of the pendrive as relied by the prosecution to the petitioner-accused.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

May 7, 2026

Bhaskar