Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12631 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35904 of 2024 Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Dhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tripathi,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamleshwar Singh,learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 8.5.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., IX, Allahabad, passed in Case No. 2497 of 2006 (State vs. Chandra Prakash Dhar), arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 1998, under Sections 420, 467, 468 of I.P.C., P.S. Soraon, District Allahabad, whereby opportunity to produce the defence evidence has been closed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 31.1.2024. It is further submitted that two working days, except the day of strike, may be provided to him to produce the defence evidence in the aforesaid case. 4. Learned A.G.A. admitted the factual position of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant gave undertaking that he will produce defence evidence on two dates as fixed by the trial court. 6. In Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 16 SCC 628, the Supreme Court considered the issue of fair trial observing in Para 10, which is as under:- "10. This Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of 2013) decided on 30.9.2013, after referring to its earlier judgments in Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing: Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law' and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. xx xx xx xx Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights." 7. In view of above facts and circumstances and undertaking of learned counsel for the applicants, the order dated 8.5.2024 is set aside with direction to the applicant to produce defence evidence (oral or 2 of 3 documentary) without any adjournment in two working days in the aforesaid case. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed of with above observations. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 A.P. Pandey 3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad