Absconding accused are not entitled to copies of case documents except for the FIR under specific judicial guidelines.

O R D E R

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2025 The petitioner herein is an absconding accused in Crime No.259/2021 of the Hosdurg Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.522/2021 before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasargod. The offences alleged are under Sections 354 , 354A(1)(i) of the Penal Code and also 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('the POSCO Act' for short). Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A1 Order, which rejected his application for issuance of copies of F.I.R, F.I.S, final report, seizure mahazar and scene mahazar.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant crime was registered when he was abroad, and he was unaware of the proceedings. The petitioner intends to return to India and to appear before the Court and that he stands in need of applying for bail. In order to exercise his right of an effective defence, certified copies of the documents like F.I.R, F.I.S, final report, seizure mahazar and scene mahazar etc., are absolutely necessary. It is that request, which has been rejected by the trial court by Annexure-A1 Order, which infringes petitioner's fundamental rights, besides violating Article 22 of the Constitution. Section 33 of the POCSO Act relied upon by the trial court does not prevent issuance of certified copies to the accused. Learned counsel would highlight that the investigation is complete; and all what petitioner seeks is copies of the documents afore-referred upon payment of the prescribed cost in accordance with rules; and not free copies under Sections 207 /208 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and others [ 2016 (4) KHC 838 ].

4. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that the offences alleged are serious in nature and that the petitioner has been absconding, all throughout the investigation. He has not appeared before the trial court, or for that matter, before the investigating officer, even once. He is, therefore, not entitled to copies of the F.I.R, F.I.S, final report, seizure mahazar, scene mahazar etc. The judgment in Youth Bar Association of India (supra) only speaks of making available the F.I.R. by uploading the same on the website, and therefore, the same cannot be pressed into service to support the petitioner's application. The issue is covered by Miss.A vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [ 2020 (5) KHC 441 ] of the Apex Court, on which reliance is correctly placed by the trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor seeks dismissal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds little merit in the instant Miscellaneous Case. The essential facts, as taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned Annexure-A1 Order (in paragraph no.5), is extracted here below:

“5.The point:- The records of the case would show that, the investigating officer filed an absconding final report that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 354, 354A(1)(i) of IPC and section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. The allegation is that when the victim was staying at Ajanoor Gramam, Ajanoor Kadappuram, and when she visited the accused's house at building No.17/23A, one day, at the sit out of the house, the accused with sexual intent caught hold of her and thereby committed the offence. It was also stated that later the vic