Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30279 of 2024 Applicant :- Nafees Alias Kallu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Sen Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Indra Sen Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Applicant- Nafees Alias Kallu And 3 Others who are charge sheeted accused have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 7.8.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 966 of 2012 (Shafiq @ Pati and Others), under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Falawda, District- Meerut, whereby application dated 26.7.2024, under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused applicant before Court below (paper no. 203 kha) has been rejected by Court below. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by submitting that perusal of the application dated 26.7.2024 filed by accused/applicant before Court below will go to show that question proposed to be put to the witnesses have not been mentioned in the application. Since the questions desired to be put to the witness have not been mentioned, therefore, there is no averment regarding relevancy of the same. Therefore, the test laid down by the Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Biharand Another, (2013) 14 SCC 461 regarding veracity of application under section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied in the present case. In view of above, prima facie no illegality has been committed by Court below. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was engineered by the accused only to delay the trial inasmuch as the deposition of prosecution witnesses followed by the statement of accused/applicant under section 319 Cr.P.C has already been recordeed. The trial is at the stage of hearing. As such no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad