Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39933 of 2024 Applicant :- Kunal Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Vajpeyi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant- Kunal Pandey, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, Most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Varanasi in S.T. No. 224 of 2024 (State Vs. Kunal Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2023 under section 323, 341, 342, 354, 354B, 376D 506, 509 IPC, and Section 66E of I.T. Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Varanasi. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Varanasi in S.T. No. 224 of 2024 (State Vs. Kunal Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2023 under section 323, 341, 342, 354, 354B, 376D 506, 509 IPC, and Section 66E of I.T. Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Varanasi,, during the pendency of the present application, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/Or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that documents relied upon by the applicant is part of the prosecution evidence but same has been denied to the applicant on the ground that the same affects the privacy of prosecutrix. He, therefore, submits that except for the caption which relates to the privacy of prosecutrix the other part of the electronic material (Pen Drive) could have been easily provided to the applicant. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that order impugned is liable to be modified by this Court. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. Referring to the order impugned it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that Court below has returned a clear and categorical finding that since the disputed material (Pen Drive) affects the right of privacy of the prosecutrix, therefore the accused has only a limited right of perusing the said material but he cannot demand a copy of the same as a matter of right. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in denying the copy of the said material. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that Court below in support of aforesaid conclusion has stated upon the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Gopal Krishna @ Dilip Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2020 (SC) 1, wherein the apex Court has also provided that an accused is not entitled to the copy of such material which affects the right of privacy of the prosecutrix. The accused can only have limited right of perusing that document. In view of above, no illegality can be attached to the order impugned. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is by now well settled that any document which is in the possession of the prosecution and whether relied or not by the prosecution, yet the accused is entitled to have the copy of the same in case, demand is made by the accused. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Ponnusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2022 SCC Online SC 1543. Paragraphs 14 and 16). 8. Apart from above, rules of natural justice require that where document is bulky or the right to privacy of the prosecutrix stands affected then copy of such document can be denied to the accused but certainly the right to peruse that said document cannot be denied. In view of above, the order impugned is liable to be modified but only to the extent that accused shall have right to inspect the disputed document material (Pen Drive) twice during the entire period of trial. In case, such a demand for inspection of the said document is made on behalf of accused, Court below shall arrange for the same but keeping the right of privacy of the prosecutrix intact. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad