1 2026:CGHC:4278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 273 of 2026 1 - Nikhilesh Tembhurne S/o Late Gangadhar Tembhurne Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Rajnandgaon, (Station Para Ward No.11, Present Address - Ward No.2 Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Shahrukh Khan @ F.R.K. S/o Mo. Islam Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No.2 Ramanujganj District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Ramanujganj District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For State : Shri Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23.01. 202 6 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO Act) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.09 of 2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioners/accused persons under Section 230 of BNSS has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the accused in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.09 of 2022 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO Act) Ramanujganj. The INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.29 11:57:33 +0530 2 petitioner No.1-Nikhilesh Tembhurne is facing trial for the offence under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act and in alternative Section 354A, 356(D)(2), 506-B of IPC. The petitioner No.2-Shahrukh Khan @ FRK is facing trial for the offence under Sections 16/17 of POCSO Act and Section 509 of IPC. In the present case, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners on 04.03.2022 before the trial court and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the petitioners on 16.03.2022 and acknowledgment were obtained. The charges were framed by the trial court on 26.03.2022 and the case was proceeded for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The victim was examined on 05.07.2022 as PW-1 and her cross examination was also concluded on that day. She was re-cross-examined on 02.09.2023 after allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, on various dates the other witnesses have been examined and PW-11 has been examined on 12.01.2026. On 03.12.2025 the petitioners have filed an application under Section 230 of BNSS for supply of copy of 164 CrPC statement of the victim. It is submitted that the accused persons (petitioners herein) came into knowledge of 164 CrPC statement of the victim on 01.11.2025 when they inspected the record of trial court and the copy of same has not been supplied to the accused persons at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, the prosecution may be directed to supply a copy of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the victim was not supplied at the time of filing of charge sheet and they were not in knowledge 3 about the same during trial. They came into knowledge on 01.11.2025 and immediately thereafter they filed an application for supply of copy of the same. There is material contradictions in the evidence of victim with that of her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and therefore, they need to cross examine the victim on that basis for which the copy of statement under Section 164 CrPC of victim is necessary. Non supply of relevant document to the accused would amount to withheld of fair and impartial trial which thus affect their defence. Therefore, the prosecution may be directed to supply copy of the same and the petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that at the time of filing of charge sheet, copy of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC was made as a part of said charge sheet and the entire document annexed with the charge sheet including statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC have also been supplied to the accused persons on 16.03.2022. At that time, the accused persons have not raised any objection that some documents are not supplied along with charge sheet. Even during entire trial of the case the objection have not been raised by the defence. Even the accused persons have not claimed the copy of said document on 24.03.2023 when they made an application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling of victim for her re-cross-examination on the issue of confrontation of the evidence available in Pen Drive. Therefore, the petitioners/accused persons have raised a frivolous 4 ground only to delay the conclusion of trial which is not bonafide and the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioners have filed the documents of order sheet as well as charge sheet along with covering memo dated 23.01.2023. From perusal of the charge sheet annexed at page No.129 of the covering memo it transpires that statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC is a part of the charge sheet which has been mentioned in coloumn No.12.5 of the said charge sheet. The copy of charge sheet was stated to be supplied to the accused persons on 16.03.2022 and acknowledgment of the accused persons have also been reflected from the order sheet dated 16.03.2022, however, there was no objection by the accused persons or their counsel that the entire document of charge sheet has not been supplied to them. It is only on 03.12.2025 i.e. after about two years and nine months the objection was raised by the accused persons that copy of 164 CrPC statement of victim has not been supplied to them. In between that period, ten prosecution witnesses have already been examined, cross examined and victim was re-cross-examined. The petitioners have not annexed the copy of application filed before the trial court under Section 230 of BNSS to demonstrate the grounds on which he claimed the said document. From perusal of order sheet it transpires that on 24.03.2023 the petitioners have filed an application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling of the victim for confrontation of Pen Drive which was allowed 5 on 19.07.2023 but in that application the petitioners have not raised any objection that they have not been supplied the copy of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Even when the victim was re-cross-examined on 02.09.2023, no objection was raised. Further, the statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC was very much available with the charge sheet. The trial court after considering the fact that trial is pending since 2022 and the application has been filed on 03.12.2025; on earlier occasions the petitioners have not raised any objection and also from perusal of charge sheet the entire document have been supplied to the petitioners, rejected the application. It further transpires that while recording evidence of investigating officer Rajesh Xalxo, PW-6, in para-5 of his examination in chief, he clearly deposed that the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the JMFC, Ramanujganj. On that day the accused persons were represented by their counsel and the investigating officer was cross examined by him. Rajesh Xalxo was examined on 28.02.2024 meaning thereby the accused persons and their counsel were in knowledge on that day that there is a statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, yet, they have not tried to claim supply of document, if it was actually not received by them. 7. At the fag end of trial of the case, claiming document of charge sheet saying that at the time of filing of charge sheet the document has not been supplied to the accused, and also in view of the fact that in the meantime 11 witnesses have been examined, this court does not find any scope for interference in the petition and to direct the prosecution 6 to supply copy of 164 CrPC statement of the victim. The petitioners/ accused persons could not demonstrate that the said document has not been supplied to them along with copy of charge sheet at the time when other documents were supplied. 8. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder