Allahabad High Court

FAIZAN @ BABLUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to balance the accused’s right to primary evidence against the victim’s interest before denying the pen‑drive.

Summary

The petitioner, Faizan @ Bablu, accused of offences under Sections 376, 354, 384, 506 IPC and Section 67(a) of the IT Act, filed an application under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the sealed pen‑drive containing a video of the victim. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the video had already been extracted into the case diary and that the diary constituted secondary evidence, thus the primary evidence need not be produced. The petitioner contended that the right to be served with primary evidence was violated and relied on the Supreme Court decision in P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep v. State of Kerala. The High Court found the trial court’s reasoning unsustainable, set aside the order dated 06‑10‑2025, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to consider whether the material pertains to the victim and whether its disclosure would be contrary to the interests of justice. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an accused under Sections 376, 354, 384, 506 IPC and 67(a) IT Act is entitled to be served with the primary evidence (pen‑drive) under Section 207 CrPC when the contents have been extracted into the case diary.
Whether the trial court can deny production of the pen‑drive on the ground that the material pertains to the victim and its disclosure may not be in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207
Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 376, 384, 506
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67(a)

Subjects

primary evidence
secondary evidence
Section 207 CrPC
sexual offences
victim protection
Information Technology Act
evidence disclosure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3943 of 2026

Faizan @ Bablu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jayprakash Tiwari, Umesh Chandra
Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 73
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for
following reliefs:-

"i. Set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No.1, Moradabad in
Sessions Case No.11 of 2025 (State vs. Faizan @ Bablu and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.490 of 2024, under Section 376, 354, 384,
506 I.P.C. & 67(a) of IT Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad.

ii. Direct the learned concerned court that the copies disc/pen-drive
which are still in sealed condition may be furnished to the applicant-
petitioner, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and
injury, and/or pass such and further order as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
the accused and the petitioner has filed an application under Section 207
Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the pen-drive containing the video may be
provided to the petitioner. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme
Court in P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and
another, 2020 (9) SCC 161.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the right of the
accused to have served all the documents. The trial court by the impugned
order dated 6.10.2025 has rejected the aforesaid application on the ground
A227 No. 3943 of 2026
2

that the material contained in the CD, which already extracted in the case
diary. The case diary would be a secondary evidence insofar as the pen-
drive is concerned when the primary evidence is required to be served on
the petitioner.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the petition and submits that the present
case arises out of offence under Sections 376, 354, 384, 506 I.P.C. &
67(a) of IT Act, and it is alleged that the petitioner has made video of the
victim, which is part of the pen-drive and, therefore, the aforesaid
document cannot be supplied.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 6.10.2025 would go to show
that such a finding has not been recorded by the trial court. The only
finding is recorded that once the video contained in the pen-drive has
been extracted in the case diary, therefore, it is not required to be given.
Such finding is not sustainable under law and as such the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 6.10.2025
is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for
decision afresh. While deciding the issue afresh, the trial court shall
record a finding that in case there is any material pertaining to the victim,
which would not be in the interest of justice to be given to the accused,
then the trial court can deny the same. Otherwise, the trial court shall
consider the application for giving the contents of the pendrive as relied
by the prosecution to the petitioner-accused.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
May 7, 2026
Bhaskar

Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…