[2025:RJ-JP:39109] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5591/2025 1. Hariom Son Of Shri Radheyshyam Patidar, Resident Of Village Post Bahi Parshvnath, Police Station Pipaliya Mandi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh) 2. Jagdish Gurjar Son Of Shri Mangilal Gurjar, Resident Of Village And Post- Khoti, Tehsil And Police Station Sitamau, District Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh for Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 23/09/2025 1. Petitioners are co-accused along with other three accused namely, Om Prakash, Kumbha Ram Jat and Dilkhush Patidar, in Criminal Case No.20/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Durgashankar and ors. pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) and have filed instant misc. petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2025, whereby their application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall prosecution witness PW-10-Vikas Yadav for cross-examination, was dismissed. 2. Indisputably, cross-examination of PW-10 has been made by other three co-accused and counsel for the accused-petitioners was also present, who was given opportunity to cross-examine the [2025:RJ-JP:39109] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-5591/2025] prosecution witness PW-10, but counsel did not avail that opportunity on the pretext that some out-station Advocate would appear to cross-examine. In the impugned order, trial court has observed that the Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the accused-petitioners, himself is a Senior Advocate and contesting the trial on behalf of the accused petitioners in the present case but he denied to cross-examine the prosecution witness PW-10, hence, in that view opportunity of cross-examination was closed. 3. The subsequent application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Now 348 of BNSS, 2023) has been dismissed vide impugned order. 4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Now 348 of BNSS, 2023) is not to permit recalling of prosecution witness, just on the prayer of the accused, but subject to satisfaction of reasonable reasons. In the present case, accused has been given an opportunity to cross-examine and Advocate of accused did not avail that opportunity knowingly. Hence, the application to recall PW-10, seems to have been filed maliciously and just to cause delay and petitioners cannot be allowed to misuse the process of law. 5. Considering the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court in the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 14.07.2025 does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. 6. As a result, the instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. 7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/17