NA528/40820/2026 of BITTU ALIAS ARUN KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 22 September 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2026 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIIth, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1476 of 2016 (State Vs. Manish and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 624 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 120B/ 34 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 7/25, 27(2) of Arms Act, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the application under Section 348 B.N.S.S./ 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the prosecution witness-P.W.13-Investigating Officer, for further cross examination has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application under Section 348 B.N.S.S./ 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer that in the cross examination of the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) certain questions were remained to be asked, therefore, the said prosecution witness be summoned for further cross examination, but the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application without application of mind in cursory manner.

4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the application moved on behalf of the applicant under Section 348 B.N.S.S./ 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court was nothing but the same was filed for the purpose Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bittu Alias Arun Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

to delay the trial. The applicant was given adequate opportunity to cross- examine the said prosecution witness and he had already cross-examined him. Thus, the trial court has rightly rejected the said application filed by the applicant by the impugned order. There is no merit in the case and the present application may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the material available on record and also gone through the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the impugned order it has been observed by the trial court that earlier adequate opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine the said prosecution witness and he had already availed the same and now the present application has been moved on his behalf with the prayer to recall him to cross-examine him again, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it appears that the applicant wants to linger on the trial anyhow. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the same has rightly been passed by the trial court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. There is no merit in the present application and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Dismissed accordingly. September 23, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 40820 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad