Allahabad High Court

PARVEZversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The trial court did not commit any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, Parvez, appealed against an order dated 4 June 2026 of the Additional Session Judge (Special Judge SC/ST Act) which rejected his application to have certain documents placed on record. The appellant claimed the documents were with the police station and that, under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he was entitled to copies of relevant documents. The trial court held that the application lacked specific details of the documents and was filed merely to delay the trial, and therefore dismissed it. The High Court examined whether the trial court committed any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application. Finding that the trial court acted within its discretion and that the documents were not part of the prosecution evidence, the High Court held that there was no error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant's application for production of documents on the ground of lack of specificity.
Whether the appellant is entitled to copies of documents under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the circumstances.
Whether the trial court's order amounts to illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207, 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 366, 366A, 376
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)5

Subjects

Criminal Procedure
Document Production
Section 207 CrPC
Trial Delay
Appeal Dismissal
Evidence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8969 of 2026

Parvez
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Basdeo Nishad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 4.6.2026 passed by
Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Muzaffarnagar in
Special Session Trial No.27 of 2023 (State Vs. Parvez & Anr.), arising
out of Case Crime No.79 of 2023, under Sections 366, 366A, 376 IPC and
Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffarnagar.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that an application
dated 20.12.2025 was moved before the trial court seeking to bring
certain relevant documents on record and requesting the court to ensure
justice in that regard. Admittedly, although the application alleges that
certain relevant documents are lying with the concerned police station, it
does not specify the provision under which it is filed, nor does it furnish
the particulars of the documents sought. At the relevant stage, the trial is
proceeding with the prosecution evidence, and the accused would, in any
event, have an opportunity to adduce defence evidence after recording of
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that, in
view of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to receive copies of
the relevant documents. However, the alleged forged document referred
to in the application does not form part of the prosecution record, has not
been relied upon by the prosecution, and has not been made part of the
prosecution evidence. The trial court rejected the application on the
ground that no specific details of the alleged documents had been
CRLA No. 8969 of 2026
2

disclosed. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view
that the application appears to have been moved only to delay the trial
proceedings.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that
the learned trial court has committed no illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 4.6.2026.

5. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

6. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
concerned within 48 hours.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 14, 2026
RA

Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…