Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10579 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2777 of 2024 --------- 1. Sanjay Rampal, S/o Late B.N. Rampal, R/o Gandhi School Road, Jhumri Tilaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumri Tilaiya, District- Koderma 2. Umesh Paswan, S/o Late Deo Narayan Paswan, R/o Bali Baghicha, P.O. & P.S. Harmu, District- Ranchi 3. Purushottam Lal, S/o Late R.N. Yadav, R/o R.N. Yadav Road, P.O. & P.S. Masipirhi, District- Hazaribag 4. Binod Kumar Sahay, S/o Late Shiv Gobind Sahay, R/o Road No. 4A, Kusum Vihar, Morabadi, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi 5. Rameshwar Prasad, S/o Late Ram Narayan Prasad, R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Jhumri Tilaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumri Tilaiya, District- Koderma 6. Ramjee Prasad @ Ramji Prasad, S/o Late Shukar Mahto, R/o Nawadah Basti, Jhumri Tilaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumri Tilaiya, District- Koderma ... … Petitioners Versus Union of India through C.B.I. ... … Opposite Party --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharati, Adv. --------- 04/07.04.2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. This application is directed against the order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge CBI- cum-Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 06(A)/2010-R, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioners u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the forwarding letter dated 22.01.2011 was marked as Exhibit P-23 but the enclosures were not exhibited and, therefore, an Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10579 ) -2- application was preferred u/s 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for recall of P.W.8 for his reexamination. Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that though the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.8 on the letter which the defense seeks the enclosures of Exhibit P-23 but the said opportunity was not availed of and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in rejecting the application preferred u/s 311 Cr.P.C. It appears that Exhibit P-23 is a letter dated 22.01.2011 which has been proved by P.W.8 and P.W.8 has been cross-examined at length by the defense and discharged. Subsequently, however an application was preferred by the petitioners u/s 311 Cr.P.C. in order to recall P.W.8 for further examination on the point of the enclosures of Exhibit P-23. In spite of the cross- examination undertaken by the defense such point was never brought forward by the defense and it seems by way of an afterthought the application has been preferred u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recall and reexamination of P.W.8. The learned trial court while rejecting the application preferred u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has discussed in details the provisions of law as well as the reason for disallowing such application. I do not find any reason to differ with the said order and consequently this application stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) A. Sanga/-