[2025:RJ-JP:48804] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7827/2025 Pushkar Kumar Mittal S/o Late Krishan Kumar Mittal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No.9, Kathumar Road, Khedli, Alwar. Presently Residing At 91, Nandpuri, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Add. Superintendent Of Police, A.C.B., Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preeti Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/12/2025 Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application (42/2025) filed by the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.PC for providing certain documents filed along with the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed serious error of law and facts by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 207 of Cr.PC for providing certain documents. Counsel submits that petitioner has a legal right to get all the documents which are filed with the charge-sheet. She submits that learned trial Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application in a very cursory manner without [2025:RJ-JP:48804] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7827/2025] recording any cogent reasons and grounds. She thus, prays that the instant criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the impugned order being per se illegal and erroneous may be quashed and set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner after taking into consideration the material available on record. He submits that the impugned order is a reasoned one and therefore, warrants no interference from this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner’s counsel appearing before the trial Court had already obtained the copy of charge-sheet along with documents on 10.03.2021 and now the petitioner has filed the application after a period of about 4.5 years. It has been observed by the trial Court that any objection with regard to the alleged incompleteness of the copies of documents ought to have been raised by the petitioner at the time when the charge-sheet was furnished to him in the year 2021. The petitioner having remained silent for more than 4 years, cannot be permitted to raise such an objection at this belated stage. The trial Court has further observed that since the matter pertains to the year 2021, the provisions of BNSS do not apply to the present case, even assuming the applicability of the BNSS, the statutory period of 60 days from the date of cognizance for filing an application seeking discharge has already elapsed, rendering the petitioner’s prayer barred by limitation. It [2025:RJ-JP:48804] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7827/2025] appears that the petitioner has filed the said application with the sole intention to delay the proceedings. Having considered the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, after considering all the aspects of the matter in detail and with due application of mind. The trial Court meticulously examined the material and recorded due reasons and grounds in the impugned order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court does not find any cogent and sustainable reason so as to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all grounds and defence before the trial court at appropriate stage. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/-30