Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141125 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18766 of 2025 Applicant :- Saddam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 1, Bijnor in S.T. No. 02 of 2025, arising out of case crime no. 299/2024, (State v. Saddam), under Sections 304/34 IPC, P.S. Chanpur, district Bijnor, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 348 BNSS for cross-examination of PW-1 Arif has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the aforesaid case applicant is in jail and co-accused Javed was granted bail. By the time of cross-examination of PW-1 Arif, applicant has not engaged any counsel and thus, PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the applicant. In fact cross-examination of PW-1 was conducted by the counsel for co-accused Javed. It was submitted that applicant has moved an application under Section 348 BNSS to recall PW-1 but the same has been rejected by the trial court in an arbitrary manner. It was further submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. I have considered submissions and perused the record. 7. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. The rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same. 8. As far as question of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is clear that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 9. In the instant matter it was shown that applicant is in jail and the case of applicant is that he has engaged his counsel Sri Munesh Kumar on 20.02.2025 and by that time statement of PW-1 Arif has already been recorded. As per version of applicant, cross- examination of PW-1 was conducted by the counsel for co-accused Javed and not on behalf of applicant. It appears that in the impugned order learned trial court has not made any such observation as to whether at the time of cross-examination of PW- 1, applicant has a counsel or not. Further, it has also not been examined by the trial court as to whether recall of PW-1 Arif is necessary for just decision of the case or not. It appears that application filed by applicant under section 348 BNSS has been rejected in a routine manner without considering facts and position of law. Considering entire facts, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 1, Bijnor is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on the application of applicant under Section 348 BNSS afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad