[2025:RJ-JP:41067] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6224/2025 Naresh S/o Roopsingh, R/o Village Tyonga, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj). ----Accused Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Non-Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 09/10/2025 This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bharatpur (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in sessions case No. 49/2018 whereby, an application filed by the accused-petitioner (for brevity, ‘the petitioner’) under Section 315 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed as also against the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court whereby, his defence evidence was closed. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner, alongwith co-accused person, is facing trial under Sections 323, 341, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC wherein, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 14.07.2025 closed his defence evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 29.07.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:41067] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6224/2025] under Section 315 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order impugned dated 08.09.2025. Assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not produce his defence evidence on account of abstinence call of the Advocates from work. He further submits that in the interest of justice, he may be granted one more opportunity to lead his defence evidence. He, therefore, prays that this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed, the orders impugned be quashed and set aside and he may be afforded an opportunity to lead his defence evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. Vide order dated 14.07.2025, the learned trial Court closed the defence evidence of the petitioner on the premise that on previous occasions also, i.e., 26.05.2025, 05.06.2025 and 18.06.2025, he was afforded an opportunity to lead his defence evidence but he failed. His application dated 29.07.2025 filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 for the reason that the defence evidence was closed after affording him sufficient opportunities. It is not disputed before this Court that before closing his defence evidence vide order dated 14.07.2025, he was given sufficient time to do so. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason, to interfere with the orders impugned. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of advocates abstaining from work, the defence evidence could not be led, does not merit acceptance. Abstinence of the Advocates from the work is no ground to keep on going to extend [2025:RJ-JP:41067] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6224/2025] opportunity to lead defence evidence when sufficient time is already granted. Even otherwise, in the application dated 29.07.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 315 Cr.P.C., only averment of remaining the Advocates away from work is on 14.07.2025. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. If the application filed by the petitioner under Section 315 Cr.P.C. is allowed, it would amount to reviewing the order dated 14.07.2025 closing his defence evidence which is impermissible under the criminal law. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/43