Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14464 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1637 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Mehfooz And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Km Preete Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Km. Preete, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicants-Mohd. Mehfooz and Mintu, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-5, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 572 of 2022 (State Vs. Mehfooz @ Bhoora and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 728 of 2015, under Sections 302, 307, 394, 411 and 34 IPC, Police Station-Sector 24, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby application dated 11.12.2024 (paper no. 16 Kha), filed by the prosecution, for getting the depositions of eye witnesses recorded through video conferencing, has been allowed. 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State contends that since no prejudice can be said to be caused to the accused- applicant by order dated 18.12.2024, therefore, the present application is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed. According to the learned A.G.A., it is an undisputed fact that witness Tarun is an eye witness of occurrence. He has also been summoned by Court below to appear before Court and getting his deposition recorded. On account of non appearance of aforesaid witness, non bailable warrant was issued against him. In spite of above, he could not appear before Court below on the ground that he has threat to his life. In view of above, the prosecution filed an application for getting his deposition recorded through video conferencing, which has been allowed by Court below. No prejudice can be said to be caused to the accused-applicant, who are charge sheeted accused and facing trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. She has, however, referred to the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 and on basis thereof, made an attempt to show that the order impugned is illegal. However, she could not establish the same. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application were clearly borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of present application, therefore, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 7. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad