Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 980 of 2025 1. Tarun Kumar, S/o Pradyuman Sharma. 2. Pradyuman Sharma, S/o Anandi Thakur. Both R/o Vill- Rustampur, P.O. + P.S.- Hulasganj, Dist.- Jehanabad, Bihar. ... Petitioners Versus 1. National Investigation Agency (NIA) 2. Union of India. 3. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Home, Jail & Disaster Management. … Opposite Parties ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Adv. For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA For the U.O.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A. (Bihar). For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ---- Dated : 15/04/2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA. 2. In this application, petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI cum Special Judge NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2404/2024 corresponding to Special NIA Case No. 01/2022 arising out of RC Case No. 05/2021/NIA/RNC, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.3 for further cross- examination has been rejected. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 2 3. The prosecution case reveals that the Central Government had received information that some prominent cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organization, Pradyuman Sharma alias Saket alias Kundan alias Sudhanshu alias Kunal alias Nakul alias Laden (petitioner no. 2) along with Yogendra Ravidas alias Lighter, Nagendra Giri, Abhinav alias Gaurav alias Bittu, Dhananjay Paswan and others are conspiring to revive the CPI (Maoist) in Magadh zone. The allegation is such that in furtherance of this sinister motive, they have conspired to raise funds for procurement of arms and ammunitions and of imparting training of cadres in IED’S fabrication and to liaise with incarcerated Naxals, OGW’s in various jails for commission of terrorist activities. 4. After considering the gravity of the offence and in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section 5 of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division vide Order F. No. 11011/79/2021/NIA dated 27.12.2021 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the said case. In compliance to the same, NIA Ranchi had registered the case as RC No. 05/2021/NIA/RNC under Section 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the NIA in which the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2 respectively. After cognizance was taken, the trial proceeded and in course of trial one protected witness being P.W.3 was examined and discharged on 09.07.2024 without cross-examination. On the same day, an application was moved by the defence seeking time to cross-examine P.W.3 as the main counsel was out of the country but the learned trial court had rejected the same. The petitioners had later on filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.3 for Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 3 cross-examination in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2404/2024 which, however, was rejected on 30.9-2024 and which is the order impugned to the present application. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 has been passed contrary to the basic purpose and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is embedded on it. The counsel for the petitioners was out of the country which was the reason for the petitioners to seek deferment of the cross-examination of P.W.3, but without considering such genuine grievance, the impugned order has been passed. Mr. Poddar has submitted that P.W.3 in his Examination-in-Chief has given evidence against the petitioners and in order to mount a challenge to such assertions, P.W.3 has to be cross-examined otherwise the same would lead to a failure of justice. The salutary provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is “just decision of the case” which cannot be arrived at if the petitioners are not allowed to cross-examine P.W.3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are serious in nature as they are being tried under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which is all the more reason to have given an effective chance to the defence to cross-examine P.W.3. The learned trial court has arrived at an erroneous finding while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA has submitted that the conduct of the petitioners in not cross- examining P.W.3 is a deliberate act of mischief. On 09.07.2024, the counsel for the petitioners declined to cross-examine P.W.3 as the lead counsel was out of the country, but on 10.07.2024, part cross-examination was done on behalf of the petitioner no. 2 in the present application of P.W.4 who is also a protected witness and on 11.07.2024, cross-examination was completed Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 4 on behalf of both the petitioners. On 12.07.2024, the cross- examination of another protected witness P.W.5 was completed. Mr. Das has, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have cross-examined P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are protected witnesses without any attempt at a deferment of their cross-examination but they have acted differently at the time of cross-examination of P.W.3. It has been submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 09.07.2024 vide which the prayer for adjournment made for the purposes of cross-examination of P.W.3 has been negated and the said order has attained finality. Mr. Das, in course of his submission, has also brought to the notice of the Court that one protected witness has already been murdered and recalling P.W.3 for cross-examination would put a grave threat on the life of P.W.3. He has, therefore, prayed that considering all the circumstances highlighted by him, the present application is liable to be rejected. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. 8. Before entering into the merits of the case, we may refer to Section 311 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” 9. In the context of the provisions enunciated in Section 311 Cr.P.C., reference is made to the case of Varsha Garg v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 SC 3707 wherein, it has been held as follows: Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 5 “29. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression "may" postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the recall of a witness by the Court as it uses the expression "shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case". Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the Court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory.” 10. In the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461, it has been held as under: “17.11. The court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.” 11. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, one of the pivotal reasons which can be gathered in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for recall of P.W.3 for cross-examination is the danger to the life of P.W.3 as one of the protected witnesses have been murdered albeit at the instance of the Maoists as Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 6 alleged by the NIA. The protection of witnesses has been embedded in Section 17 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 and the same reads as under: “17. Protection of witnesses.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the proceedings under this Act may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be held in camera if the Special Court so desires. (2) On an application made by a witness in any proceeding before it or by the Public Prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, if the Special Court is satisfied that the life of such witness is in danger, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of such witness secret. (3) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (2), the measures which a Special Court may take under that sub-section may include— (a) the holding of the proceedings at a place to be decided by the Special Court; (b) the avoiding of the mention of the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to public; (c) the issuing of any directions for securing that the identity and address of the witnesses are not disclosed; and (d) a decision that it is in the public interest to order that all or any of the proceedings pending before such a Court shall not be published in any manner. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 7 (4) Any person who contravenes any decision or direction issued under sub-section (3) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.” 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 gives ample powers to the learned Special Judge to take measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of such witness a secret if it is satisfied that the life of such witness is in danger. The statute itself has ensured that necessary safeguards are put in place to protect the identity and life of a witness considering the grave risks such witness embraces in the backdrop of the sinister designs of the accused persons. 13. Since it was submitted by Mr. Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA that one of the protected witnesses has been murdered by the armed cadres of terrorist organisation, we had directed learned Spl. P.P., State of Jharkhand vide order dated 10.03.2026 to take instruction on the said submission. As no response was forthcoming, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A.-Bihar was directed to take instruction who later on submitted that the investigation into the said case is still continuing. Nothing has been produced before us indicating the complicity of the petitioners in the murder of the protected witness. Such submission of learned Spl. P.P.-NIA in the context of the petitioners can, therefore, be discounted. 14. The reason which has been highlighted by the learned trial court is that the refusal on the part of the petitioners to cross- examine the protected witness P.W.3 is fallacious considering the fact that the same set of counsels had cross examined the other protected witnesses a day before as well as after such refusal was made. The petitioners have taken a plea that their counsel who was to cross-examine P.W.3 was out of the country and, Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:11288-DB CR.M.P. NO. 980 OF 2025 8 therefore, cross-examination could not be conducted. It is a fact that P.W.3 is an important witness of the prosecution and in order to arrive at a just decision as well as to ensure that the petitioners get a fair trial, the cross-examination of P.W.3 is necessary. The learned trial court in its order dated 30.09.2024 had flagged the issue of safety and security of P.W.3 if he is presented for cross-examination and which may adversely impact the prosecution case but to ensure safety of P.W.3, the powers of the learned trial court, as we have noticed above, is ingrained in Section 17 of the National Investigation Act, 2008. Such reason cannot curtail the right of the petitioners to cross- examine P.W.3. 15. Based on the reasonings noted above, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 30.09.2024 and direct the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI cum Special Judge NIA, Ranchi to permit the petitioners to cross-examine P.W.3. We are not fixing any time frame leaving the said exercise in the domain of the learned Special Judge NIA, Ranchi considering the threat perception to the life of P.W.3 as noticed by the learned Special Judge NIA, Ranchi, though, at the same time, an expeditious endeavor be made for cross-examination of P.W.3 once the necessary precautions are put in place ensuring safety to the life of P.W.3. 16. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. 17. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Dated: 15th April, 2026 Preet/- Uploaded on: 20 /04/2026.