HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38407 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. 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. 2. 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 accused- applicant 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 1367 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinay Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 3. Learned A.G.A. accepts notice for the State. 4. None appeared for opposite party nos.2 and 3. 5. 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. submits that the application of the accused- applicant is rightly rejected, as the same has been moved belatedly to delay the trial. 7. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. 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. 9. 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 2 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. 10. The trial court has rejected the application of the accused- applicant merely on the basis of admissibility of document in evidence and how it is useful for the trial, which is misconceived notion of law. 11. 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 NA528 No. 38407 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad