1 2025:CGHC:31160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2122 of 2025 1 - Anjeet Das S/o Jagesh Das Aged About 46 Years (Wrongly Written As Ajeet Das), R/o Jhugi No.-436, Ekta Vihar, Sector-05, Thana R.K. Purma, District - South West Delhi, Present Address - D/198/B, Block - D, Lalkunwa Pool, Phlad, South Delhi. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - G.R.P. Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Advocate and Mr. Prashant Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 08/07/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 43/2024, whereby the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of BNSS filed by the petitioner has been Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.09 10:32:05 +0530 2 rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the police have arrested the present petitioner in Crime No. 40/2024 for the offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, and the same is pending for its trial. In this case, Assistant Sub Inspector, B.N. Mishra, GRP Police Station Bilaspur, has examined before the trial Court on 09.06.2025 as PW-11. During the cross-examination, some questions were left by the defence counsel; therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-cross- examination of this witness, which was rejected by the trial Court. Hence the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the absence of senior counsel, some important questions have remained to cross-examined from the PW-11, Assistant Sub Inspector, B.N. Mishra; therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is genuine and the trial Court committed grave illegality in rejecting the application. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 is liable to be quashed, and the trial Court may be directed to give an opportunity for re-cross-examination of the said witness. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 3 5. Looking to the material available on record and on perusal of the order impugned it is clear that the main examination of witness B.N. Mishra (P?W-11) was started on 09.06.2025 at 11:50 am and after the main examination was completed before tea time, detailed cross-examination was done by the defence till tea time (2:00 pm) and thereafter from 3:25 to 4:10 pm and questions were also asked to the witness in cross-examination regarding physical verification. Thus, it is clear that after giving sufficient opportunity of cross- examination to defence counsel. The trial Court considered the fact that the opportunity for cross-examination again at the trial stage of the accused is not justified and rejected the application. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the material available on record, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order impugned to interfere with the order. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu