Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15110 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43785 of 2024 Applicant :- Azad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Zakir, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Azad, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Session Judge. Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 394 of 2016 (State of U.P. Versus Danish and others) relating to Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under section 302, 201, 120B L.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr and also direct the court below to re-summon the P.W.1 namely Kishanprasad and Bittu-P.W.2 for cross-examination, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 394 of 2016 (State of U.P. Versus Shiv prasad and others) relating to Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under section 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court. And/Or may be pleased to pass such further and suitable order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned sessions trial, the depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were recorded. Subsequently, accused/applicant filed an application dated 12.11.2024 under Section 348 BNSS with the prayer that P.W.1 and P.W.-2 be recalled as clarification is required in respect of certain issues. However, court below upon evaluation of record, ultimately rejected the application dated 12.11.2024 by means of order impugned dated 07.12.2024. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. He then invited the attention of Court to the application dated 12.11.2024 under Section 348 BNSS, copy of which is on record at page 47 of the paper book. With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses, i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were duly mentioned in the application, therefore, it cannot be said that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant was a vague application. However, court below without considering the same has rejected the application dated 12.11.2024 primarily on the ground that the said application has been engineered only to delay the trial. He therefore contends that the order impugned is liable to be set-aside by this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 has vehemently opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. submits that perusal of the application dated 12.11.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused/applicant, will go to show that only the statements of facts have been mentioned in the said application and not specific questions. Therefore, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is vague. There is no recital in the said application with regard to the relevancy of the alleged question which are desired to be put to the accused. He therefore submits that when the contents of application under Section 348 BNSS are examined in the light of parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another (2013) 14 SCC 461, it is apparent that the said application was primarily engineered only to delay the progress of the trial. Since there is nothing substantial on record to conclude that serious prejudice is going to be caused to the defence, in case an opportunity to further cross-examine the witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 is not established from the record, therefore no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. Consequently, present application is liable to be dismissed. . 7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 528 BNSS is not only borne out from the record but further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. As such no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application. 9. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad