$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010461572026 + CRL.M.C. 7208/2026 ANWAR HUSSAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocates with SI Satish Kumar, SI Lal Chand, PS-S.B. Dairy. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 25.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 30113/2026 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7208/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30112/2026 (stay) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] seeking to set aside the order dated 07.07.2026, passed by the learned JMFC, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in CR Case No. 5295547/2016, arising out of FIR No. 245/2014, P.S. Shahbad Dairy, whereby, at the stage of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, a request made by the petitioner to cross-examine PW-2, was turned down and the case was re-listed for recording of statement of accused. 2. Petitioner has been facing trial under Sections 279/304-A IPC This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:40:13 and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in case FIR No. 245/2014, P.S. Shahbad Dairy. PW-2 Kapil Dev was examined on 15.12.2018. The petitioner did not cross examine the witness on that day, and therefore, the witness was discharged. 3. An application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the recall of PW-2 for cross examination was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.09.2022, subject to cost of Rs. 1000/-, to be deposited with Delhi High Court Registrar General’s account. Despite repeated opportunities granted by the Court on 15.04.2023, 25.09.2023, 07.05.2024, 19.10.2024, 01.04.2025, 10.11.2025, 11.05.2026 & 02.06.2026, the petitioner failed to comply with the condition of the order dated 24.09.2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cost has already been deposited, and in this regard, he places reliance on the receipt, placed on record (Annexure P-6). He further submits that even though the summons were issued to PW-2, he never appeared before the Court. It is argued that PW-2, being an eye witness, is a material witness of the incident and therefore denial of his cross examination would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. He accordingly prays for grant of an opportunity to cross examine PW-2. 5. Having perused the record, it is found that since after the passing of the order dated 24.09.2022 which allowed the recall of PW- 2 for cross examination subject to cost, the matter was taken up on multiple dates. Despite the passage of almost four years and repeated opportunities, petitioner did not comply with the condition of deposit of cost. Consequently, the learned Trial Court observed that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:40:13 opportunity granted to the petitioner stands exhausted and reiterated the order of closure of prosecution evidence. 6. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that an accused must be afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to defend himself and cross examine the material prosecution witnesses. However, the right of cross examination cannot be construed as an unqualified right to seek repeated opportunities, particularly when, the opportunity was already granted by the Court subject to a specific condition and accused failed to comply with the same even after a considerable period of time. 7. Petitioner failed to deposit the cost imposed for as long as four years, resulting in adjournments and delay in trial. The deposit of cost now after filing of the present petition is of no use. 8. The learned Trial Court recorded cogent reasons for turning down the request for grant of adjournment for cross examination of PW-2 on account of non-compliance with the condition imposed in the order dated 24.09.2022. The Court, therefore, finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 07.07.2026, warranting any interference by this Court. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not in any manner be construed as a finding on the merits of the case. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/AK This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 10:40:13