HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AVNISH SAXENA
Vijendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Learned A.G.A. has filed the counter affidavit. Sri Shive Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 appears and files vakalatnama as well as the counter affidavit. The same are taken on record.
2. Sri Divyanshu Pathak, learned counsel for the accused-applicant appears and submits that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as the opposite party no.4. He submits that sole ground of moving the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is the framing of charge by the trial court without the mandatory compliance of Section 230 B.N.S.S., which mandates that the copy of police report and other documents shall be provided to the accused-applicant and further submits that the order of taking cognizance dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Etawah in Special Case No.22 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijendra Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 352, 65(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act as well as Sections 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Usarahar District Etawah, has not made any mention in the order

Non-compliance with mandatory document supply under Section 230 B.N.S.S. constitutes a violation of the right to fair trial, rendering the charge framed by the trial court void.
The court held that failure to give the accused an opportunity to file for discharge before framing charges violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
The judiciary must uphold statutory safeguards in charge framing, ensuring independent judicial reasoning and preserving defendants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Framing charges without affording accused opportunity for discharge under BNSS Section 262(1), hearing, or legal aid to custodial accused violates mandatory procedure; order set aside and remanded.
Discharge of accused – At the stage of considering application for discharge court must proceed on assumption that material which has been brought on record by prosecution is true – Defence of accuse....
The court established that the determination of age and the validity of evidence must be assessed during the trial, not at the discharge stage.
At the discharge stage, an accused cannot seek production of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, as the right to produce evidence arises only during the trial phase.
The necessity of documents for trial must be clearly stated in the application; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Sections 233(3) and 91 of Cr.P.C.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
Important Point:a) A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiryb) it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure fair trial for both the prosecution and the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.