The Allahabad High Court has set aside charges framed against an accused in a POCSO and SC/ST Act case, ruling that failure to provide mandatory copies of police documents undermines the right to a fair trial. The Court emphasised that supplying such documents is not a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard for an accused person.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Special Case No. 22 of 2025 titled State of U.P. vs. Vijendra Kumar, registered at Police Station Usarahar in Etawah district. The accused faced charges under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside J&K High Court Order in NRI Custody Fight, Sends Case Back for Fresh Decision
After the police submitted a chargesheet on December 13, 2024, the Special Judge under the POCSO Act took cognisance of the alleged offences on January 6, 2025. The trial court subsequently fixed dates for framing of charges and eventually framed charges against the accused on April 4, 2025.
Challenging these proceedings, the accused approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), claiming that he had not been provided copies of the police report and other relevant documents within the statutory timeline.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the accused argued that Section 230 of the BNSS mandates that the accused must be furnished copies of the police report and supporting documents within fourteen days of appearance or production before the court. It was submitted that the order taking cognisance did not record any direction for supplying such documents.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order, Says High Courts Can’t Strike Off Plaint When CPC Remedy Exists
The defence further contended that without these materials, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to file a discharge application, a legal remedy that allows an accused to seek dismissal of charges before trial if evidence appears insufficient.
Opposing the plea, counsel representing the complainant and the State argued that copies of the police papers had in fact been provided. They relied on an endorsement and the accused’s signatures on the court order to claim compliance. They also stated that the accused was present in court when cognisance was taken and had sufficient time to file a discharge application but failed to do so.
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, Justice Avnish Saxena noted that Section 230 BNSS clearly obligates courts to provide police reports, FIR copies, witness statements, confessions, and other prosecution documents free of cost within a specified timeframe.
The Court pointed out that the order taking cognisance showed the presence of the accused but did not indicate that the statutory requirement of document supply had been fulfilled. The Court refused to infer compliance merely from the accused’s signatures on the margin of the order.
“The compliance of Section 230 BNSS is not a mere formality but an epitome of fair trial,” the bench observed.
On the defence argument regarding the fixing of a date for framing charges, the Court held that setting such a date does not violate the accused’s right to seek discharge. The Court clarified that it cannot presume whether the accused will file a discharge application or not, and therefore fixing a schedule for further proceedings was legally valid.
Court’s Decision
The High Court concluded that failure to comply with Section 230 BNSS vitiated the subsequent proceedings, including the framing of charges. The Court held that such non-compliance directly violated the fundamental principle of a free and fair trial.
“The non-compliance of Section 230 BNSS has made further proceedings of the case and framing of the charge in contravention to the legal provision,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the charges framed on April 4, 2025. It directed that the accused be supplied with copies of police papers and other relevant documents within one week. The Court further granted liberty to the accused to file a discharge application under Sections 261 and 262 BNSS thereafter.
The High Court allowed the application under Section 528 BNSS and disposed of the matter.
Case Title: Vijendra Kumar vs State of U.P. & Others
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36420 of 2025
Decision Date: January 27, 2026
