- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4930 OF 2026 BETWEEN: NIKIL SANKLA @ JASWANT KUMAR, S/O DAYA LAL JI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/OF WARD NO. 01, BHINMAL VILLAGE, JUJANI ROAD, JALOR DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN-343029. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.119, SENDI COLONY, BALAJI NAGAR, AURANGABAD DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE - 431001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VACHAN G A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CITY MARKET POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. BHAVARLAL, FATHER OF VICTIM, AGED MAJOR, RESIDENT OF NO.204, 2ND CROSS, POLICE ROAD, THANASINGH PETE, COTTONPETE, BENGALURU-560 053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, SPP–I FOR R-1) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE FTSC-I, ADDL. CC AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.747/2024 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE THE CW 10, CW-11 AND CW-12 ON A SINGLE DAY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following prayer: "WHEREFORE the Petitioner most humbly Prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Hon'ble FTSC-I, Addl. CC and Sessions Judge Bengaluru in Spl.CC.No.747/2024, and permit the Petitioner to cross examine the CW-10, CW-11 and CW-12 on a single day in the Interest of Justice and Equity." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 2. Heard Sri.Vachan G.A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned SPP-I appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner-accused gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.12 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 354(A) and 506 of the IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application before the concerned Court under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., seeking permission to conduct cross examination of CWs.10, 11 & 12 together on the same day, as CWs.10, 11 & 12 are the father, mother and brother of the victim. The concerned Court on 17.12.2025, rejects the application of the petitioner on the score that, in the application there is no specific reason provided by the petitioner for deferring the cross-examination. Challenging this order of rejection, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 5. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that, since three witnesses belong to the same family and are related to each other, if they are examined on different dates, the defence of the accused may get exposed. The issue need not detain this Court for too long, nor delve deep into the matter. While interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., and the discretion vested in the concerned Court to defer the cross-examination, this Court in the case of RAVINDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, held as follows: "8. To consider the said issue, it is germane to notice Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., invoking which the application is filed. It reads as follows: 231. Evidence for prosecution:- (2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. (Emphasis supplied) Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. vests a judicial discretion in the Trial Court to defer cross-examination of a witness where circumstances so warrant. The provision is not ornamental, it is purposive. It is a statutory recognition of the principle that fairness of 1 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 881 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 trial is not merely a procedural formality, but a substantive guarantee flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. The contours of discretion under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. are no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA v. RASHEED2 has lucidly expounded that while no straight jacket formula governs the exercise of power under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., the determinative consideration is whether refusal of deferment would occasion prejudice to the accused. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA (supra), holds as follows: “…. …. …. 21. The Delhi High Court, in Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9012 : 2017 Cri LJ 3875] , laid down useful directions for the conduct of criminal trials. The directions are commendable, and relevant excerpts are reproduced hereinbelow: (SCC OnLine Del para 42) “42. … (vi) Since the expectation of law is that the trial, once it commences, would continue from day to day till it is concluded, it is desirable that, keeping in mind the possible time required for recording of evidence (particularly of the prosecution), a detailed schedule of the dates of hearing on which evidence would be recorded is drawn up immediately after charge is framed — this, taking into account not only the calendar of the court but also the time required by the prosecution to muster and secure the presence of its witnesses as well as the convenience of the defence counsel. Once such a schedule has been drawn up, all sides would be duty-bound to adhere to it scrupulously. (vii) While drawing up the schedule of dates for recording of the evidence for the prosecution, as indicated above, the presiding Judge would take advice from the prosecution as to the order in which it would like to examine its witnesses, clubbing witnesses pertaining to the same facts or events together, for the same set of dates. 2 (2019) 13 SCC 297 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 (viii) If the defence intends to invoke the jurisdiction of the criminal court to exercise the discretion for deferment of cross-examination of particular witness(es) in terms of Section 231(2), or Section 242(3) CrPC, it must inform the presiding Judge at the stage of setting the schedule so that the order in which the witnesses are to be called can be appropriately determined, facilitating short deferment for cross-examination (when necessary) so that the recording of evidence continues, from day to day, unhindered avoiding prolonged adjournments as are often seen to be misused to unduly influence or intimidate the witnesses. (ix) It is the bounden duty of the presiding Judge of the criminal court to take appropriate measures, if the situation so demands, to insulate the witnesses from undue influence or intimidatory tactics or harassment. If the court has permitted deferment in terms of Section 231(2), or 242(3) CrPC, for cross- examination of a particular witness, it would not mean that such cross-examination is to be indefinitely postponed or scheduled for too distant a date. The court shall ensure that the deferred cross-examination is carried out in the then ongoing schedule immediately after the witness whose examination ahead of such exercise has been prayed for.” 22. There cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC can be exercised. The exercise of discretion has to take place on a case-to-case basis. The guiding principle for a Judge under Section 231(2) CrPC is to ascertain whether prejudice would be caused to the party seeking deferral, if the application is dismissed. 23. While deciding an application under Section 231(2) CrPC, a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The following factors must be kept in consideration: (i) possibility of undue influence on witness(es); (ii) possibility of threats to witness(es); - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 (iii) possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; (iv) possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in-chief has been completed; (v) occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non- availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) CrPC [ “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.—(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded:”See also Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 226 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 712; and S.J. Chaudhary v. State (UT of Delhi), (1984) 1 SCC 722 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 163.] . These factors are illustrative for guiding the exercise of discretion by a Judge under Section 231(2) CrPC. 24. The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible: 24.1. A detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges. 24.2. The case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted. 24.3. The case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible. 24.4. Testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately scheduled. 24.5. The request for deferral under Section 231(2) CrPC must be preferably made before the preparation of the case-calendar. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 24.6. The grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses. 24.7. While granting a request for deferral of cross- examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for. 24.8. The case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary. 24.9. In cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court underscores that in cases involving multiple witnesses deposing on the same set of facts, premature exposure of the defence strategy may enable subsequent witnesses to tailor their testimony, thereby imperilling them the fairness of trial. 10. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of MOHITOSH BISWAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL3, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 12. Before proceeding to decide the issue it is necessary to consider the provisions contained in section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Section-231- of Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: 231. Evidence for prosecution. 1) on the date so fixed the judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. 2) The judge may in his discretion permit the cross examination of any other witness or witnesses to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined 32024 SCC OnLine Cal 9110 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 or recall any witness for further cross- examination. 13. In the case of Sunita Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: ‘22. These two provisions are to be read in consonance with each other. At this stage, the Court is concerned only with the prosecution's evidence. To ensure fair play, as a normal practice, the Court has to fix a date for the examination of the witnesses. The idea is to complete the examination-in-chief and cross examination, both at the same time. While fixing the date, the Court is expected to take into consideration the relative convenience of the parties, though the discretion lies with it. Sub-section (1) of Section 231 of the CrPC, 1973 fixes a responsibility on the Court, the prosecution and the defence to go ahead with the examination of witnesses on the date so fixed. Therefore, even for this reason, the Court shall ascertain and then decide a convenient date for both sides, while being conscious about any attempt to drag the trial. Completion of such examination is a matter of rule as any deferment can at best be an exception, to the discretion of the Court. Obviously, the use of such a discretion, being judicial in nature, has to be on a case-to-case basis. Suffice it is to state that a balance has to be struck between the competing interests. 14. State of Kerala v. Rasheed, (2019) 13 SCC 297 “22. There cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which judicial discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC can be exercised. The exercise of discretion has to take place on a case-to- case basis. The guiding principle for a Judge under Section 231(2) CrPC is to ascertain whether prejudice would be caused to the party seeking deferral, if the application is dismissed. 23. While deciding an application under Section 231(2) CrPC, a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The following factors must be kept in consideration: i) possibility of undue influence on witness(es); - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 (ii) possibility of threats to witness(es); (iii) possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; (iv) possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in- chief has been completed; (v) occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non-availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) CrPC.’ 15. Upon perusing section 231(2) CrPC it appears that discretionary power is given to the Court to permit the cross examination of any witness to be deferred which is to be decided on the facts of every case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Rashid (supra) has laid down the guidelines to be followed with regard to different cases and the discretion has to be on a case to case basis. While disposing application under Section 231(2) CrPC, all the above factors should be taken into consideration and not a particular factor. 16. In the order passed by Learned Trial Judge dated 24/04/2024 it appears that the Learned Court has considered the delay aspect and have ignored the other aspects about the defence being disclosed or the accused being prejudiced. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Jayalittaa v. State, (2014) 2 SCC 401 observed that Fair Trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair Trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus fair Trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case.’ 18. As an accused person should get a reasonable opportunity to defend himself it must be seen whether by disclosing the defence the reasonable opportunity of defence is curtained or extinguished, or whether the prosecution in such circumstance of disclosure of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 defence is getting opportunity to fill up the lacuna in the case. 19. In the event two views are available as to whether defence of the accused is disclosed to the prejudice of the accused the accused should be given the benefit and cross-examination should be deferred. However the Courts should also see that trial is not unnecessarily delayed and hence should fix the dates of evidence accordingly. In the instant case upon perusing the order passed by the Learned Trial Court and considering the facts of the case this Court is of the view that the Learned Defence Advocate has given a reasonable ground to defer the cross examination of P.W.1 till completion of Examination in chief of P.W. 2 and P.W.-3.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of RAVINDER KUMAR v. UT OF J&K4, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 14. The Apex Court in Rasheed, had an occasion to analyse the import and legislative intent of Section 231(2) Cr. P.C., corresponding to Section 254(3) BNNS, and it was clearly ruled that there cannot be a straightjacket formula providing for the grounds for exercise of judicial discretion and it depends upon case to case. Pertinently, it was observed that the guiding principle, in such cases, for a Court is to ascertain whether dismissal of application for deferral of cross examination would result in prejudice to the parties seeking deferral and delineated the following factors for consideration: i. possibility of undue influence on witness(es); ii. possibility of threats to witness(es); iii. possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy; iv. possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in-chief has been completed; and 42025 SCC OnLine J&K465 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 v. Occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non- availability of witnesses, if deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) Cr. P.C. (Emphasis supplied) 15. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, Supreme Court expounded following guidelines, to be followed by the courts in the conduct of a criminal trial: “24. The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial, as far as possible: 24.1. A detailed case calendar must be prepared at the commence-ment of the trial after framing of charges; 24.2. The case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross- examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted; 24.3. The case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence, as far as possible; 24.4. Testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject matter must be proximately scheduled; 24.5. The request for deferral under Section 231(2) of the Cr. P.C. must be preferably made before the preparation of the case calendar; 24.6. The grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross - examination of each witness, or set of witnesses; 24.7. While granting a request for deferral of cross examination of any witness, the trial courts must specify a proximate date for the cross examination of that witness, after the examination in chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 24.8. The case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary; and 24.9. In cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation.” (Highlighted to emphasize) 16. Learned trial Court considered the application preferred by the petitioners in the light of aforesaid guidelines, in particular, guideline 24.5 and rejected the application, on the ground that since the application was preferred by the petitioners after the examination in chief of PW1-Jagir Singh was completed and not, at the very outset, when the calendar for examination of witnesses was drawn, so the application did not meet the first requirement. 17. It needs a specific mention that guidelines provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rasheed commenced with the expression “as far as possible” and guideline 24.5 provides that request for deferral must “preferably” be made before the preparation of the case calendar. If paragraph 24 of Rasheed is carefully glanced over and guideline 24.5 is read in conjunction with the opening expression “as far as possible”, I find legal force in the argument of Mr. Sakal, learned counsel for the petitioners that it does not lay down in absolute terms that an application for deferring cross examination of a witness should necessarily be filed before the preparation of the case calendar. Learned trial Court, by overlooking the aforesaid expressions, has misdirected itself, to conclude that the application for deferment of prosecution witnesses must be preferred by the accused, at the outset, when calendar for examination of witnesses was drawn. The logical requirement is that such an application for deferring cross examination of a witness or witnesses, on the same set of facts, must be made before the commencement of the cross examination of a particular witness. In other words an application for deferment of cross examination of a witness or set of witnesses must be filed, as early as possible, but, in any case, before the commencement of cross examination of a witness, otherwise once the defence strategy is exposed, the object of deferral of cross examination pales into insignificance. The petitioners, in the present case, preferred the application for deferral of cross-examination of eye witnesses, to the same set of facts, at the earliest - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 available opportunity and before the defence strategy would become known to the prosecution. 18. Mr. Kotwal, learned Special PP for the respondent has argued that trial Court, in terms of sub section 3 of Section 254 BNSS, is vested with the discretion to defer cross examination of a witness only and wholesale deferment of six prosecution witnesses is not permitted in law. He has relied upon Md. Sanjoy (supra) to support his contention. 19. Guideline 24.6 of Rasheed is a complete answer to the issue raised by learned Special PP, which provides that deferral of cross examination of a witness or set of witnesses, shall be justified, provided it is premised on sufficient reasons. The expression “each witness or set of witnesses” in guideline 24.6 is sufficient to indicate that Court, under Sub Section 3 of Section 254 BNSS is vested with the jurisdiction to permit the deferment of cross examination, not only of a witness but a set of witnesses and it depends upon case to case justifying the deferral of cross examination. Therefore, observation of learned trial Court that en masse or wholesale deferment of six eye witnesses, is not permissible in law, is also not sustainable. 20. Learned trial Court is of the view that Court cannot assume and presume a hypothetical situation in advance that witness will get a chance to improve upon their testimonies. Be it noted, that one of the factors, to be kept in mind by the Courts to justify the deferral of cross examination of a witness or set of witnesses, underscored by the Apex Court in Rasheed, is “possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence strategy.” It is evident from the expression “possibility” in para 23(iii) of judgment that such an application for deferral of cross examination of a witness or witnesses, on same set of facts, can be premised on a presumption or apprehension. 21. Case of the petitioner is that PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, are not only related but cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution, to the same set of facts alleged in the challan. In the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioners accused that their non-deferral can enable subsequent witnesses, testifying on similar facts to circumvent the defence strategy, is well founded and the possibility of the prosecution to tailor their testimony to the prejudice of the petitioners, cannot be ruled out. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 22. In a similar fact situation, Bombay High Court, followed Rasheed, in Nannebabu Ramdev Gupta (supra) to observe that if the defence is made open, during cross examination of the complainant, then there is possibility that lacunae would be filled in by the prosecution through other witnesses who are close relatives of the complainant. It was held that these circumstances justified the exercise of discretion of deferring cross examination of related witnesses and there will be no prejudice to the prosecution. Relevant excerpt of the judgment reads as: “11…….. it cannot be said that the apprehension expressed by the applicant is unfounded. If his defence is made open while cross-examining PW 1/complainant, then the lacunae would be filled in by the prosecution through the other three witnesses who are her father, mother and a close relative, interested in the version of the complainant. 12 The circumstances narrated, therefore, would justify the exercise of discretion in sub- section (2) of Section 231, which is a tool available to the defence to defer the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses until other witnesses are examined, as it would lead to making the defence open, while the first witness of the prosecution itself is examined and the contingency which would specifically fall within one of the consideration as laid down by Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rasheed (supra), for exercising the discretion under sub-section (2) of Section 231. In any case, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the cross-examination of PW 1 (complainant) is deferred till the examination-in-chief of the above mentioned three witnesses is concluded, so as to avoid the prosecution filling up the lacunae in its case, as may be disclosed by PW 1 or the subsequent witnesses related to her.” 23. High Court of Calcutta also relied upon Rasheed in Mohitosh Biswas (supra), and held that if two views are available that whether defence of the accused will be disclosed to his prejudice, he would be given the benefit and cross examination should be deferred. Relevant observation reads as below: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 “In the event two views are available as to whether defence of the accused is disclosed to the prejudice of the accused should be given the benefit and cross examination should be deferred……………..” 24. True it is, that prosecution witnesses are expected to testify in their chief examination on the lines of their statements recorded, during investigation, under Sections 161 or 164 Cr. P.C., and any improvement or deviation by them from said statements, may render their depositions unworthy of credence. However, it is the apprehension of improvisation by the prosecution witnesses in their cross examinations to circumvent the defence strategy which is to be taken into consideration by the Court at the time cross examination of a witness or set of witnesses is sought to be deferred and if that apprehension is well founded, it can hamper the prospects of a fair trial, a basic postulate of criminal jurisprudence. The circumstances narrated by the petitioners, in the present case, justified the exercise of discretion by the Court, in terms of sub section 3 of Section 254 BNSS. 25. If the principle of law expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rasheed, is carefully glanced over, it is manifest that, as far as possible, a plea for deferral under Section 254(3) BNSS, must preferably be made before the preparation of the case calendar or at the earliest available opportunity, before the defence strategy would become known to the prosecution. A request for deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons and prejudice is the determinating factor, to be borne in mind.” (Emphasis supplied) The High Courts of Kerala, Calcutta and Jammu and Kashmir have echoed this salutary principle, consistently holding that where two views are possible, the one that safeguards the right of the accused to a fair trial must prevail. The jurisprudential thread running through these decisions is unmistakable: A criminal trial is not a contest of endurance, but a quest for truth conducted within the bounds of fairness. 12. Tested on this anvil, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Sessions Judge has proceeded on conjectural apprehensions of delay and witness intimidation while altogether overlooking a fundamental - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 question whether denial of deferment would prejudice the defence. The reasoning is cursory, discretion mechanical and the approach antithetical to the settled law governing Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. 13. In the present case, several witnesses are cited as eyewitnesses to the same incident and are closely related and proximally placed, the apprehension of the accused that early cross-examination would lay bare their defence cannot be brushed aside as fanciful. Such apprehension is not only plausible, but judicially recognized. In the light of the fact that all the witnesses CW-1 to CW-8 had tendered identical statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., at the time of investigation. This Court therefore, is constrained to hold that the order dated 24.06.2025 suffers from manifest error of jurisdiction and failure to exercise discretion in accordance with law. The rejection of the application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners and has the potential to undermine the fairness of the trial itself." (Emphasis supplied) This Court, in the afore-quoted judgment observes that, when two views are available the one that safeguards the right of the accused to a fair trial must prevail. The apprehension of the accused that early cross-examination would lay bare their defence, since the witnesses are closely related and proximally placed cannot be brushed aside and also when all the witnesses rendered identical statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The rejection of the application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. would cause serious prejudice to the accused and has the potential to undermine the fairness of the trial itself. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 5.1. Further, this Court in the afore-quoted judgment, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA v. RASHEED5, wherein the Apex Court, while laying down the factors to be kept in consideration, while deciding an application under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. observes that, one of the factors is, the possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony so as to circumvent the defence strategy. 6. In light of the law laid down by this Court in the afore-quoted judgment, following the judgment of the Apex Court in RASHEED supra, the order of the concerned Court passed on 17.12.2025, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C., deserves to be set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. 5 (2019) 13 SCC 297 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29262 CRL.P No. 4930 of 2026 (ii) Order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Bengaluru in Spl.CC.No.747 of 2024, qua the petitioner, stands quashed. (iii) The concerned Court shall now permit the cross-examination of CWs.10, 11 & 12 on the same day instead of examining them on different dates. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22