IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 486 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026. Abrar Ahmed …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of order dated 13.05.2026, passed in Case No. 42 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. vs Abrar Ahmed passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It appears from the record that the defence evidence of the petitioner/accused was closed by the learned Trial Court on 06.05.2026 because he has failed to take steps for the service of defence witnesses, despite the repeated adjournments granted by the learned Trial Court. He, subsequently, filed an application under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for summoning the material witnesses, as their examination is necessary for the just decision of the case, which application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.05.2026, after holding that the application was vague and was filed just to linger on the case. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13th May, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The copy of the application has been filed before this Court, in which the name of any witness sought to be summoned has not been mentioned. Therefore, the learned Trial Court 3 cannot be faulted for dismissing the application by holding that it was vague. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the names of the witnesses have not been mentioned in the application, however, during the course of hearing he submits that he would file list of witnesses within three days from today. 7. The petitioner/accused is being prosecuted of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of IPC and Sections 6, 10 & 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act, 2012, which offences are grave. The right of the accused to defend himself cannot be taken away because his counsel was remiss in his duties in non-filing the list of the witnesses. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the State by summoning the witnesses and summoning of the witnesses would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion of the trial. 8. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 13.05.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, 4 H.P. in case titled State of H.P.vs Abrar Ahmed in case No. 42 of 2021 is ordered to be set aside. 9. Learned Trial Court will summon the witnesses in case list of witnesses is filed within a period of three days from today, failing which the order dated 13.05.2026 shall revive automatically. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. 11. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th May, 2026 (ravinder)