Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25704 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5053 of 2025 Applicant :- Halimuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Halimuddin, 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 allow the present application and quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2023 (State Vs. Subeena Khatoon and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 458 of 2022 Under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2023 (State Vs. Subeena Khatoon and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 458 of 2022 Under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that perusal of the application dated 08.01.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant before Court below will go to show that the specific questions proposed to be put to the witnesses have not been mentioned therein. Since, the proposed questions have not been mentioned in the application, therefore there is no averment regarding the relevancy of the same. In view of above, the learned A.G.A. submits that since proposed questions have not mentioned in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. nor the relevancy of the said questions has been detailed, therefore, the veracity of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., or the bona fide of the accused applicant in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be judged in the light of parameters laid down by the Apex Court for judging the bona fide of the applicant in filing the application in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2013) 14 SCC 461. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused applicant. Consequently, the present application is liable to be rejected. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 8. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad