Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49770 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11018 of 2025 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Pramod Kumar, who is a charge sheeted accused, has now 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 kindly pleased to allow this application and to set-aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 334 of 2022 (State Vs. Pramod) arising out of Case Crime No. 387 of 2019 under section 376, 504, 506, 419, 420, 406, I.P.C. Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the further proceedings of S.T. No. 334 of 2022 (State Vs. Pramod) arising out of Case Crime No. 387 of 2019 under section 376, 504, 506, 419, 420, 406, I.P.C. Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Jaunpur, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of S.T. No. 334 of 2022 (State Vs. Pramod) arising out of Case Crime No. 387 of 2019 under section 376, 504, 506, 419, 420, 406, LPC. Police Station Keraket District Jaunpur pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Jaunpur, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or grant such other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned sessions trial, accused-applicant filed an application dated 06.02.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that P.W.-1 be recalled as certain questions could not be put to him. The questions that were proposed to be put to P.W..-1, were also mentioned in aforementioned application. However, aforementioned application was opposed by the prosecution. Ultimately, court below by means of order impugned dated 07.03.2025 rejected the aforementioned application on the finding that aforementioned application has been engineered to delay the conclusion of trial. 5. Court below has further observed that after deposition of all the prosecution witnesses recorded, the statement of accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, matter was posted for final hearing. At this stage, aforementioned application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been engineered on behalf of accused/applicant.At no point of time any prayer was made to recall P.W.-1. Apart from the questions proposed to be put to P.W.- 1 are irrelevant for deciding the controversy. 6. On the above conspectus, court below concluded that no justifiable ground has emerged for recalling of P.W.-1. As such, aforementioned application was rejected by Court below vide order dated 07.03.2025. 6. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State- opposite party-1 has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another (2013) 14 SCC 461, has laid down the parameters which are required to be looked into for deciding the bonafide of the applicant in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. When the aforesaid parameters are applied to the present case, no bonafide of the applicant is apparent in filing the aforementioned application. In view of above as well as the findings returned by court below in the order impugned itself, no illegality can be said to have been committed by court below. As such, on interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 8. 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 further 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. 9. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad