Uttarakhand High Court
April vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2355
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1162 of 2022
01 April, 2025
Bilal
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. -------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present C482 application,
applicant has put to challenge the order dated
12.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge NDPS,
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, whereby the application
no.22d moved by the applicant has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary
details are that the applicant is facing trial before the
Special Judge, NDPS, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in
Special Sessions Trial No.419 of 2021, State vs. Bilal,
under Section 8/20/60 of the NDPS Act. PW1-Kavinder
Singh Rana was examined on 23.02.2021 before the
learned trial court and his examination-in-chief was
recorded. PW1-Kavinder Singh Rana was not cross-
examined by the Advocate, namely, Manoj Sharma earlier
engaged by the applicant as the applicant was in jail. The
applicant, subsequently, engaged Mr. Ajay Kumar Badoni
1
2025:UHC:2355
for conducting his trial, who moved application paper no.
22d on 06.09.2021 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. requesting
the learned trial court to reject the order of closing the
opportunity of cross examining PW1-Kavinder Singh
Rana and provide him one opportunity to cross examine
PW1-Kavinder Singh Rana.
3. In para 2 of the said application it has been
stated that on the date of examination-in-chief of PW1-
Kavinder Singh Rana on 23.02.2021, applicant was
lodged in District Jail and the Advocate-Manoj Sharma,
who was engaged by the applicant to conduct his case
refused to conduct the case. It is also stated in para 2
that since the applicant could not engage the new
counsel to conduct his case, therefore, witness PW1-
Kavinder Singh Rana could not have been cross-
examined, therefore, it was requested that the learned
trial court to give him opportunity to cross-examine PW1-
Kavinder Singh Rana after quashing the order of closing
the opportunity of cross-examination.
4. The said application was rejected by learned
trial court vide impugned order dated 12.10.2021. It has
been stated by learned trial court while rejecting the
application no.22d that the sufficient opportunity has
been given to the accused-applicant to cross-examining
the PW1-Kavinder Singh Rana, but the Advocate of the
applicant despite opportunity and his presence during
trial, did not cross-examine the PW1-Kavinder Singh
Rana.
5. Having gone through the impugned order
dated 12.10.2021, it is reflected that learned trial court
has not properly dealt with the application and the
reasons enumerated in para 2 of the said application that
2
2025:UHC:2355
the earlier Advocate was not conducted the trial of the
applicant and that resulted into no cross-examination of
the PW1-Kavinder Singh Rana.
6. The reasons which have been assigned by
learned trial court appears to be faulty to this Court.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, present C482
application is allowed. The order dated 12.10.2021
passed by learned Special Judge NDPS, Vikasnagar,
District Dehradun is hereby set-aside. The application
paper no.22d under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
learned trial court is directed to give opportunity to the
applicant to cross-examine PW1-Kavinder Singh Rana by
recalling him forthwith not later than fifteen days from
today.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.04.2025
AK
3
[ad_1]
Source link