Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 25.9.2025 passed by Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 13 Kanpur Nagar (in short 'trial court') in S.S.T. No. 1390 of 2019 (State vs. Anurag Shukla), whereby the application moved by the applicant under section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of B.N.S.S. has been rejected without affording opportunity to the informant/P.W.-1 to appear before the trial court for re-examination.

3. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that the First Information Report was lodged by the informant-applicant on 3.8.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 815 of 2019, under Sections 323, 354, 507 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act in respect of alleged incident dated 8.3.2019. The informant-applicant is father-in-law of accused Anurag Shukla and the FIR was lodged in respect of the offence committed by the applicant with younger daughter of the informant. The police started the investigation and recorded statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 8.8.2019. Thereafter, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9.8.2019. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed chargesheet on 6.10.2019 and the trial court took cognizance of offence vide order dated 16.10.2019.

4. The first informant, his daughter and the accused entered into an agreement and a compromise was written between them on 30.7.2021 wherein they resolved the matrimonial dispute and it was agreed that the married couple will live together and will lead a happy married life. After settlement agreement dated 30.7.2021, informant-applicant was examined by the trial court as PW-1 on 12.8.2021 and he was declared hostile by Special Public Prosecutor (POCSO Act). Thereafter, PW-2 was 2 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 also examined on 6.12.2021 and PW-2, who happens to be wife of accused Anurag Shukla was examined on 29.3.2022 and she was also declared hostile. She was also cross-examined by Special Public Prosecutor. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by informant-applicant on 14.8.2025 i.e. after more than four years from the date of his examination as PW-1 on 12.8.2021. The said application was supported with an affidavit wherein he stated that he entered into settlement, keeping in mind welfare of his daughter but since the accused is not complying with the settlement agreement, therefore, he may be summoned in the trial court for re- examination. The said application dated 14.8.2025 was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 25.9.2025.

5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved by the applicant-informant.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that as per settled principle of law, the application ought to have been allowed by the trial court and the order impugned is against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression "Fair Trial". As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

7. Learned AGA opposed the application and stated that the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of B.N.S.S. was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in the circumstances of the case, application has rightly been rejected by the trial court. The application for recalling of the witnesses has been moved after more than 4 years and the delay has not been properly explained by the applicant. It is further submitted by learned AGA that the application moved by the applicant is not maintainable since the same was not forwarded by the Special Public Prosecutor (POCSO Act) and only the State counsel may move an application for recalling of any witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if required so. The applicant himself moved an application before the trial court, which was rightly and correctly rejected by the trial court by the order impugned.

8. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order dated 25.9.2025, passed by the trial court in the aforesaid case

9. The principle related to recall of the witnesses under section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334; Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741:(2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828:2013 SCC OnLine SC 444; Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2013 SC 3081; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402; State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others, (2016) 8 SCC 762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of 3 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

10. It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and the discretion, given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

11. The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

12. The above observations cannot be read as laying down any inflexible rule to routinely permit a recall on the ground that earlier correct facts could not be brought on record. While advancement of justice remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood that recall can be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience.

13. In the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (Supra), a note of caution was sounded and the same can be deduced from paragraphs 11 and 12 of the report, which are as under:- "11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great 4 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision."

14. The power to summon material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which falls under Chapter XXIV containing the general provisions as to inquiries and trials has been held to confer a very wide power on the courts for summoning witnesses and accordingly the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously as wider the power the greater is the necessity for the application of judicial mind.

15. The power conferred has been held to be discretionary and is to enable the court to determine the truth after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof thereof to arrive at a just decision in the case. The power conferred under Section 311 is to be invoked by the court to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons and it is to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The determinative factor in this regard would be whether the summoning or recalling of the witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case keeping in view that fair trial - which entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society - is the main object of the criminal procedure and the court is to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner.

16. In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav : (2016) 2 SCC 402, it has been held that: - "Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary "for ensuring fair trial" is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including un- called for hardship to the witnesses and un-called for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined."

17. In Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340, it was held that: - "17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine 5 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order."

18. In the case of Mishrilal and others vs.State of M. P. and others (2005) 10 SCC 701 while dealing with the case having more or less similar facts the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- "In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in accordance with law. Once the witness was examined in-chief and cross- examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other court or forum subsequently. A witness could be confronted only with a previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of PW 2 Mokam Singh on 6.2.1991, there was no such previous statement and the defence counsel did not confront him with any statement alleged to have been made previously. This witness must have given some other version before the Juvenile Court for extraneous reasons and he should not have been given a further opportunity at a later stage to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath. The courts have to follow the procedures strictly and cannot allow a witness to escape the legal action for giving false evidence before the court on mere explanation that he had given it under the pressure of the police or some other reason. Whenever the witness speaks falsehood in the court, and it is proved satisfactorily, the court should take a serious action against such witnesses."

19. In the case of Yakub Ismailbhai Patel vs.State of Gujarat-AIR 2004 SC 4209, in para 40 and 41 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- 6 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 "40. Significantly this witness, later on filed an affidavit wherein he had sworn to the fact that whatever he had deposed before Court as PW-1 was not true and it was so done at the instance of Police.

41. The averments in the affidavits are rightly rejected by the High Court and also the Sessions Court. Once the witness is examined as a prosecution witness, he cannot be allowed to perjure himself by resiling from testimony given in Court on oath. It is pertinent to note that during the intervening period between giving of evidence as PW-1 and filing of affidavit in Court later he was in jail in a narcotic case and that the accused persons were also fellow inmates there"

20. In the case of Nisar Khan alias Guddu and others vs. State of Uttaranchal (2006) 9 SCC 386 where an application was filed on behalf of the accused under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and witness was recalled. With regard to this fact the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “We are of the view that no reasonable person properly instructed in law would allow an application filed by the accused to recall the eyewitnesses after a lapse of more than one year that too after the witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged.”

21. From perusal of the above case laws, it is apparent that a witnesses who has already been examined and cross-examined, cannot be recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he has already given before the trial court and no opportunity at a later stage can be given to him to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath.

22. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts as also the settled law on the issue, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned dated 25.9.2025. It is for the reason that in view of this Court, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant only to get his statement recorded against the accused since he did not depose against the accused earlier when he was examined on 12.8.2021. The application was filed after almost four years when the case was fixed for final argument. It appears that the applicant-informant has apprehension that the accused of the present case may be acquitted by the trial court, considering his earlier statement recorded on 12.8.2021, therefore, he moved a misconceived application on 14.8.2025 apparently to cause delay in conclusion of the trial or to get a favorable judgment, after recording some evidence against the accused. Therefore the application dated 14.8.2025 was rightly rejected by the trial court. The applicant cannot be permitted to bring new evidence at this belated stage and the trial court did not commit any 7 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application of the applicant.

23. The application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and the same is accordingly rejected.

24. No order as to costs. November 24, 2025 A.K.Srivastava (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 25.9.2025 passed by Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 13 Kanpur Nagar (in short 'trial court') in S.S.T. No. 1390 of 2019 (State vs. Anurag Shukla), whereby the application moved by the applicant under section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of B.N.S.S. has been rejected without affording opportunity to the informant/P.W.-1 to appear before the trial court for re-examination.

3. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that the First Information Report was lodged by the informant-applicant on 3.8.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 815 of 2019, under Sections 323, 354, 507 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act in respect of alleged incident dated 8.3.2019. The informant-applicant is father-in-law of accused Anurag Shukla and the FIR was lodged in respect of the offence committed by the applicant with younger daughter of the informant. The police started the investigation and recorded statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 8.8.2019. Thereafter, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9.8.2019. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed chargesheet on 6.10.2019 and the trial court took cognizance of offence vide order dated 16.10.2019.

4. The first informant, his daughter and the accused entered into an agreement and a compromise was written between them on 30.7.2021 wherein they resolved the matrimonial dispute and it was agreed that the married couple will live together and will lead a happy married life. After settlement agreement dated 30.7.2021, informant-applicant was examined by the trial court as PW-1 on 12.8.2021 and he was declared hostile by Special Public Prosecutor (POCSO Act). Thereafter, PW-2 was 2 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 also examined on 6.12.2021 and PW-2, who happens to be wife of accused Anurag Shukla was examined on 29.3.2022 and she was also declared hostile. She was also cross-examined by Special Public Prosecutor. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by informant-applicant on 14.8.2025 i.e. after more than four years from the date of his examination as PW-1 on 12.8.2021. The said application was supported with an affidavit wherein he stated that he entered into settlement, keeping in mind welfare of his daughter but since the accused is not complying with the settlement agreement, therefore, he may be summoned in the trial court for re- examination. The said application dated 14.8.2025 was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 25.9.2025.

5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved by the applicant-informant.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that as per settled principle of law, the application ought to have been allowed by the trial court and the order impugned is against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression "Fair Trial". As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

7. Learned AGA opposed the application and stated that the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of B.N.S.S. was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in the circumstances of the case, application has rightly been rejected by the trial court. The application for recalling of the witnesses has been moved after more than 4 years and the delay has not been properly explained by the applicant. It is further submitted by learned AGA that the application moved by the applicant is not maintainable since the same was not forwarded by the Special Public Prosecutor (POCSO Act) and only the State counsel may move an application for recalling of any witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if required so. The applicant himself moved an application before the trial court, which was rightly and correctly rejected by the trial court by the order impugned.

8. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order dated 25.9.2025, passed by the trial court in the aforesaid case

9. The principle related to recall of the witnesses under section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334; Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741:(2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828:2013 SCC OnLine SC 444; Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2013 SC 3081; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402; State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others, (2016) 8 SCC 762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of 3 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

10. It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and the discretion, given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

11. The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

12. The above observations cannot be read as laying down any inflexible rule to routinely permit a recall on the ground that earlier correct facts could not be brought on record. While advancement of justice remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood that recall can be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience.

13. In the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (Supra), a note of caution was sounded and the same can be deduced from paragraphs 11 and 12 of the report, which are as under:- "11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great 4 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision."

14. The power to summon material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which falls under Chapter XXIV containing the general provisions as to inquiries and trials has been held to confer a very wide power on the courts for summoning witnesses and accordingly the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously as wider the power the greater is the necessity for the application of judicial mind.

15. The power conferred has been held to be discretionary and is to enable the court to determine the truth after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof thereof to arrive at a just decision in the case. The power conferred under Section 311 is to be invoked by the court to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons and it is to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The determinative factor in this regard would be whether the summoning or recalling of the witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case keeping in view that fair trial - which entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society - is the main object of the criminal procedure and the court is to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner.

16. In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav : (2016) 2 SCC 402, it has been held that: - "Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary "for ensuring fair trial" is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including un- called for hardship to the witnesses and un-called for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined."

17. In Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340, it was held that: - "17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine 5 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order."

18. In the case of Mishrilal and others vs.State of M. P. and others (2005) 10 SCC 701 while dealing with the case having more or less similar facts the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- "In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in accordance with law. Once the witness was examined in-chief and cross- examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other court or forum subsequently. A witness could be confronted only with a previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of PW 2 Mokam Singh on 6.2.1991, there was no such previous statement and the defence counsel did not confront him with any statement alleged to have been made previously. This witness must have given some other version before the Juvenile Court for extraneous reasons and he should not have been given a further opportunity at a later stage to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath. The courts have to follow the procedures strictly and cannot allow a witness to escape the legal action for giving false evidence before the court on mere explanation that he had given it under the pressure of the police or some other reason. Whenever the witness speaks falsehood in the court, and it is proved satisfactorily, the court should take a serious action against such witnesses."

19. In the case of Yakub Ismailbhai Patel vs.State of Gujarat-AIR 2004 SC 4209, in para 40 and 41 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- 6 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 "40. Significantly this witness, later on filed an affidavit wherein he had sworn to the fact that whatever he had deposed before Court as PW-1 was not true and it was so done at the instance of Police.

41. The averments in the affidavits are rightly rejected by the High Court and also the Sessions Court. Once the witness is examined as a prosecution witness, he cannot be allowed to perjure himself by resiling from testimony given in Court on oath. It is pertinent to note that during the intervening period between giving of evidence as PW-1 and filing of affidavit in Court later he was in jail in a narcotic case and that the accused persons were also fellow inmates there"

20. In the case of Nisar Khan alias Guddu and others vs. State of Uttaranchal (2006) 9 SCC 386 where an application was filed on behalf of the accused under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and witness was recalled. With regard to this fact the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “We are of the view that no reasonable person properly instructed in law would allow an application filed by the accused to recall the eyewitnesses after a lapse of more than one year that too after the witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged.”

21. From perusal of the above case laws, it is apparent that a witnesses who has already been examined and cross-examined, cannot be recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he has already given before the trial court and no opportunity at a later stage can be given to him to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath.

22. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts as also the settled law on the issue, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned dated 25.9.2025. It is for the reason that in view of this Court, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant only to get his statement recorded against the accused since he did not depose against the accused earlier when he was examined on 12.8.2021. The application was filed after almost four years when the case was fixed for final argument. It appears that the applicant-informant has apprehension that the accused of the present case may be acquitted by the trial court, considering his earlier statement recorded on 12.8.2021, therefore, he moved a misconceived application on 14.8.2025 apparently to cause delay in conclusion of the trial or to get a favorable judgment, after recording some evidence against the accused. Therefore the application dated 14.8.2025 was rightly rejected by the trial court. The applicant cannot be permitted to bring new evidence at this belated stage and the trial court did not commit any 7 NA528 No. 46433 of 2025 illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application of the applicant.

23. The application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and the same is accordingly rejected.

24. No order as to costs. November 24, 2025 A.K.Srivastava (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)