Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42564 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9263 of 2025 Applicant :- Birendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Kumar Anish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Anish, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Birendra Singh, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned the order dt. 18.02.25 passed by the Additional Session Judge 4th Jaunpur in session Trail No, 78 of 2007 State Vs. Monu@ Sachin under section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Nevedhiya District Jaunpur, on the application of applicant u/s 311 Cr.P.C It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the session Trail No, 78 of 2007 State Vs. Monu @ Sachin under section 301 I.P.C. Police Station Nevedhiya District Jaunpur, during pendency of the above application; otherwise applicant shall suffer, irreparable, loss and injury. which cannot be compensated in any manner. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.". 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State- opposite party-1 submits that application dated 18.02.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant does not detail the questions proposed to be put to the witness i.e. P.W. -1. In absence of the proposed questions having been mentioned in the aforesaid application, no pleading with regard to relevancy to the same has been raised therein. Apart from above, the statement-in-chief/ examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 concluded on 22.04.2008. It is thus appears that after expiry of a period of more than 16 years and two months from the date deposition of P.W.-1 was recorded, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was engineered on behalf of accused/applicants only to delay the proceedings of trial. Upto this stage, eight prosecution witnesses have deposed before court below. It is then submitted by the learned A.G.A. that when the bonafie of accused/applicant in filing aforementioned application is examined in the light of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court (for judging the bonafide of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.) in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another (2013) 14 SCC 461 no bonafide is apparent in filing the aforementioned application. As such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. In view of above, present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. 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-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 furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application. 7. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad