Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137731 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24842 of 2025 Applicant :- Roshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Heard Sri Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been preferred by the applicant against the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-II, Meerut on an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed in Case No.944 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2021 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rohta, District Meerut, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the accused-applicant has been rejected by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial court by order dated 08.05.2025 has rejected the application of the applicant for recalling two witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. The trial court has rejected the application, but the similarly situated co- accused has also moved application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the court on the same date by order dated 08.05.2025 and recalled PW-1 and PW-2. The applicant and co- accused are on the same footing. The impugned order mentions that both the witnesses have already been examined by the counsel for the applicant, whereas in the order of the co-accused it was mentioned that the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 has not been carried out by the counsel for opposite party. It is further revealed from both the orders that the accused were in jail at the time of cross-examination. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is such that the accused-applicant being incarcerated could not contact his counsel at the time of cross-examination so as to assist his counsel in putting the questions to the witnesses. 5. The trial court while deciding the application of accused has mentioned about witness protection scheme enumerated in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Versus CBI (2019) 14 SCC 328 that witness cannot be summoned time and again. 6. The witnesses have already been summoned by the court while allowing the application of the co-accused, but the application moved by the applicant has been rejected. 7. Learned A.G.A. is present for State-opposite party no.1. 8. This Court is also of the view that the witnesses shall not be summoned time and again as it will prolong the matter leading to untold harassment of the witnesses. 9. At the same time, this Court is of the view that when the witnesses have already been recalled for cross-examination on the application of one co-accused, the applicant shall also be permitted to cross-examine PW-1 and PW-2 on the questions not been put to them, so far. 10. The applicant shall pay Rs. 2000/- to each witness prior to the start of cross-examination.. 11. With the above observations, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 MN/- (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad