# Mathura Prasad @ Mathura v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 11375 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mathura-prasad-mathura-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49456
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 233(3) - trial court can
reject an application on three grounds:
vexatious intention, intention to delay the
trial, and intention to defeat the ends of
justice - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - the
relevancy of the witnesses is to be shown,
pleaded and proved. (Para -18, 20)
Applications
preferred
by
petitioner
for
summoning - Head Moharrir, Prabhari Adhikari
(Ayudh) and other witnesses
 - relevancy to
call witnesses not indicated in application -
rejected by trial court.

HELD:-Applications have been moved with an
intention to delay the trial, as the FIR was
lodged way back on 14.04.1997 i.e. about 25
years back. Application has rightly been rejected
by trial court (Para -22, 23)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

## Text

334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िण्डिीय नकसी अपराि का संज्ञाि केंद्रीय सरकार या राज्य
सरकार या नजिा मनजस्ट्रेट की पूवद स्वकृनि से ही िेगा अन्यथा
िहीं। प्राथी के नवरुद्ध कनथि अपराि िारा 505 की उप-
िारा(1) के अिीि आिे हैं िथा उक्त अपराि के निए िारा
196 में अनभयोजि स्वीकृनि िेिे की आवश्यकिा िहीं है।
अिः प्राथी के नवद्वाि अनिवक्ता का यह िकद भी बिहीि है।

36. उपरोक्त समीक्षा के दृनष्टगि न्यायािय का यह मि
है नक प्राथदिा पत्र अन्िगदि िारा 482 िं०प्र०सं० बिहीि है।

37. िििुसार, प्राथदिा पत्र दनिस्त नकया जािा है।

38. यह स्पष्ट नकया जािा है नक नवचारर् न्यायािय
प्रकरर् को गुर्-िोर् के आिार पर, साक्ष्यों िथा नवनि के
अिुसार इस आिेश में कहे गए नकसी भी िथ्य से प्रभानवि हुए
नबिा निर्ीि करेगा।
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 334
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 11375 of 2023

Mathura Prasad @ Mathura ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 233(3) - trial court can
reject an application on three grounds:
vexatious intention, intention to delay the
trial, and intention to defeat the ends of
justice - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - the
relevancy of the witnesses is to be shown,
pleaded and proved. (Para -18, 20)
Applications
preferred
by
petitioner
for
summoning - Head Moharrir, Prabhari Adhikari
(Ayudh) and other witnesses
 - relevancy to
call witnesses not indicated in application -
rejected by trial court.

HELD:-Applications have been moved with an
intention to delay the trial, as the FIR was
lodged way back on 14.04.1997 i.e. about 25
years back. Application has rightly been rejected
by trial court (Para -22, 23)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed
for the following main relief:-

"For the facts reasons and
circumstances
mentioned
in
the
accompanying
affidavit,
it
is
most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash the order
dated 17/10/2023, passed by Learned
Additional District and Session Judge
Court No. 05/ Special Judge (Gangster
Act.) Gonda, (State Vs. Ramesh and Ors.)
in Session Trial No. 198 of 2003, in the
interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case, as indicated,
are to the effect that an FIR was registered
by the police on 14.07.1997 at about 13.40,
with regard to an incident occurred in the
night of 13/14.04.1997. The prosecution
story narrated in the FIR, in short, is that
the named accused persons including the
petitioner came to the house of the
informant namely Vasudev Mishra, in the
night of 13/14.04.1997 at about 2:30 A.M.
and assaulted the sons of the informant
11 All. Mathura Prasad @ Mathura Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
335
with Hathgola and Gun & Katta with the
intention
to
cause
death
and
also
demolished the newly constructed wall.
Thus, general allegations were leveled in
the FIR dated 14.07.1997, against the
named accused persons including the
petitioner.

4. During the course of trial the
statement of the petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Trial Court
on 10.08.2023. In this statement the
petitioner stated that at the time of alleged
incident the licensed gun of petitioner's
father was deposited in the police station
and he had gone to his brother's house at
Lucknow.

5. After the aforesaid, the petitioner
preferred an application No. 307 Kha dated
24.08.2023, praying therein that head
Moharrir P.S.- Tarabganj, Distt.- Gonda,
who had deposited the licensed gun of
petitioner's father bearing gun No. 26797,
be summoned for examination to prove that
the
licensed
gun
and
two
cartages
(Kartoos), were deposited in the police
station by the petitioner after demise of his
father on 13.03.1996. Another application
No. 308 Kha was preferred by the
petitioner, wherein he prayed to summon
the Prabhari Adhhikari (Ayudh) Office of
District Magistrate, Gonda, to prove the
fact that the licensed gun was released on
22.02.2001 in favour of legal heirs of
late Umashankar, as the petitioner
claims that the licensed gun of his
father was not available at the time
of alleged occurrence and therefore
the alleged presence of the petitioner
at the place of alleged occurrence
would become foul version of the
informant. The petitioner had also
preferred a list of the witnesses to be
summoned.

6. By means of the impugned order
dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure No.1), the trial
Court has rejected the above indicated
applications of the petitioner.

7. Assailing the order impugned dated
17.10.2023,
learned
Counsel for the
applicant stated that the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.5/ Special
Judge (Gangster Act), Gonda, in Session
Trial No. 198 of 2003 vide its order dated
17.10.2023, rejected the application(s) no.
306kha, 307kha, 308kha preferred by the
applicant for summoning the witnesses
namely Head Moharrir, Police Station
Tarabganj, District Gonda, and Prabhari
Adhikari (Ayudh), Office of District
Magistrate Gonda as also Sri Shashi
Shekhar Ojha, Praveen Kumar Srivastava,
Raghav Ram Pandey, Surendra Kumar
Tiwari, Babban Pandey, Harishanker Barai,
Devdadeen and Chandramani Tiwari, in a
utter arbitrary and illegal manner.

8.

He
further
submitted
that
allegations against the applicant in the FIR
is to the effect that at the time of alleged
incident he was holding a gun and as such
to support the case setup by the applicant at
the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the
applicant specifically indicated that the
licensed gun of father of the petitioner was
deposited in P.S. Tarabganj, Gonda and on
the date of alleged incident the applicant
was not present at the place of crime as he
had gone to the house of his brother
situated
at
Lucknow,
the
witnesses
indicated in the applications are relevant
witnesses and as such they were required to
be summoned and being so by the
impugned order dated 17.10.2023 injustice
has been done by trial court.

9.

He
further
submitted
that
examination of Head Moharrir and the
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prabhari Adhikari (Ayudh) was required to
impeach the case of the prosecution.

10. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further says that relevant grounds have
already been indicated in paragraph nos. 22
to 25 of the affidavit filed in support the
present application, which are as under:-

"22. That in fact the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the instant
case and impugned order has been passed
by the Court below in a regular routine
manner and as such the interference of this
Hon'ble Court is required at this stage to
secure the justice in favour of the petitioner.

23. That, the Petitioner submits
that the allegations against the Petitioner
are serious in nature and without affording
opportunity to produce their defense
Learned trial court has rejected the
applications in cursory and mechanical
manner. The Petitioners are charged with
attempt to murder, causing injuries and in
these circumstances the Petitioners ought
to have been given ample opportunity to
produce their defense.

24. That, Learned trial court
failed to consider that during trial
prosecution was given ample opportunity to
produce its case but the application of the
Petitioner to produce defense witnesses and
evidence was rejected on the ground of
causing delay.
25. That, section 233 (3) Cr.P.C stipulates
that "if the accused applies for the issue of
any process for compelling the attendance
of any witness or the production of any
document or thing, the Judge shall issue
such process unless he considers, for
reasons
to
be
recorded,
that
such
application should be refused on the
ground that it is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay or for defeating the ends
of justice."

11. In support of his contention,
learned Counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
21.09.2023 in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No. 9156 of 2023 (Raja Yadav alias Vijay
Kumar Yadav and another Versus State of
U.P. and Others). The relevant paragraphs,
referred by learned Counsel for the
applicant, are as under:-

"5.
Learned
A.G.A.,
while
opposing the prayer of the applicants,
submits that police report related to Case
Crime No. 296 of 2017 has no relevancy in
the present case. It is further submitted that
Application Nos. 219 Kha/1, 235 Kha/1
and 239 Kha/1 have already been allowed
by the court below by which, F.I.R. of the
aforesaid case, final report, site plan,
panchayatnama and post mortem report of
Amritlal as well as medico legal report
were taken on record along with other
documents. It is also submitted that for
proving of the said documents, it is
obligatory on the part of the accused
persons/applicants to produce defense
witnesses. However, as all the witnesses,
those names are mentioned in the police
report in Case Crime No. 296 of 2017 have
no relevancy in the present case as they are
formal witnesses, including the Head
Moharrir, Sub-Inspector and the doctor,
who prepared the medico legal report as
well as post mortem report of Amritlal. It is
lastly submitted that the court below has
rightly
allowed
the
aforesaid
three
applications of the applicants and rejected
the rest of the applications.

6. Considering the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. and going
through the contents of application, F.I.R.,
impugned order as well as other relevant
documents, it is evident that 6 applications
11 All. Mathura Prasad @ Mathura Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
337
were moved by the applicants, out of which,
3 applications were allowed by the court
below and rest of the 3 applications were
rejected vide impugned order.

It is further evident that in the
present case, the entire police report of
Case Crime No. 296 of 2017 has no
relevancy. However, attention of the Court
has been drawn towards the statement of
Chandrika Prasad, which was recorded in
the present case on 09.09.2017, which is
entered in CD No. 33 and a request was
also made before the court below for
calling him as a defense witness, but the
same was also rejected. Evidently, the court
below rightly rejected the application for
summoning the record and police report
related to Case Crime No. 296 of 2017, but
once the statement of Chandrika Prasad
was recorded in the present case and he
was not produced as a defense witness,
then the defence cannot be stopped from
calling him as a defense witness. Therefore,
the court below has wrongly rejected the
application for summoning the Chandrika
Prasad as a defense witness.

7. In such circumstances, present
application stands disposed of with the
direction that, in case, any such application
for summoning of Chandrika Prasad or any
other witness is moved, the same shall be
considered and decided by the court below
expeditiously, in accordance with law. "

12. Prayer is to interfere in the
impugned order dated 17.10.2023 and
allow the prayer sought in the present
application.

13. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
present application. He says that order
impugned is well reasoned and the trial
court has taken note of each and every
aspect of the case including the fact related
to the witnesses namely Head Moharrir,
Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda,
Prabhari Adhikari (Ayudh) and also Sri
Shashi Shekhar Ojha, Praveen Kumar
Srivastava, Raghav Ram Pandey, Surendra
Kumar
Tiwari,
Babban
Pandey,
Harishanker
Barai,
Devdadeen
and
Chandramani Tiwari. He further submitted
that applicant was failed to indicate the
reasons for summoning these witnesses. As
such no interference is required in the
present matter and the present application
is liable to be dismissed with cost, for the
reason that the applicant preferred the
application(s) just to cause the delay in
trial, as the FIR was lodged way back on
14.04.1997 i.e. about 25 years back.

14. Considered the submissions
advanced by learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

15. So far as the provision indicated
by learned Counsel for the applicant is
concerned i.e. 233(3) Cr.P.C., this Court
finds that this provision is not mandatory.
Each and every application based upon the
frivolous ground, would not be allowed
under this provision and accordingly it
should be read as directory. It is in view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Versus Badri Yadav reported in
AIR 2006 SC 1769, the relevant paragraphs
reads as under:-

"7.In this matter, the learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge
dismissed
Crl.R.P. No. 46/2022 relying on a decision
reported in AIR 2006 SC 1769: 2006 KHC
842 :(2006) 3 KLT 205:(2006) 9 SCC
549],State
of Madhya
Pradeshv.Badri
Yadav]. In the said decision, the Apex
Court considered the impact of Section
233(3) of Cr.P.C. Section 233 deals with
'entering upon defence'. Sub section 3 of
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 233 provides thatif the accused
applies for the issue of any process for
compelling the attendance of any witness
or the production of any document or thing,
the Judge shall issue such process unless he
considers, for reasons to be recorded, that
such application should be refused on the
ground that it is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay or for defeating the ends
of justice. While interpreting sub section 3
of Section 233 of Cr.P.C, the Apex Court
held thatS.233 itself deals with entering
upon
defence
by
the
accused.
The
application for recalling and reexamining
persons already examined, as provided
under S.311 Cr.P.C., was already rejected.
The power to summon any person as a
witness or recall and reexamine any person
already examined is the discretionary
power of the Court in case such evidence
appears to it to be essential for a just
decision of the case. Under S.233 Cr.P.C.
the accused can enter upon defence and he
can apply for the issue of any process for
compelling the attendance of any witness in
his defence. The provisions of sub-s.(3) of
S.233 cannot be understood as compelling
the attendance of any prosecution witness
examined, cross examined and discharged
to
be
juxtaposed
as Dws
(Defence
Witnesses). In the present case PW8 and
PW9 were juxtaposed as DW1 and DW2.
This situation is not one what was
contemplated by sub-s.3 of S.233 Cr.P.C.

8.Thus the law is very clear on
the point that the provisions of sub section
3 of Section 233 Cr.P.C. could not be
understood
as
one
compelling
the
attendance of any prosecution witness, who
was examined in chief already, cross
examined and reexamined, to be examined
as a defence witness.

9.In the present case, the prayer
that has been canvassed after dismissal of
the petition filed to recall PW3 is for the
said purpose and, therefore, such procedure
cannot be permitted. In view of the matter,
the orders impugned do not require any
interference and, therefore, this petition
lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."

16. For coming to the conclusion as to
whether
the
impugned
order
dated
17.10.2023 passed by the trial court is
justified or not, this Court is of the view
that it would be appropriate to quote the
relevant portion of the same, which reads
as under:-

"mHk;i{kksa dks lquus rFkk i=koyh ds
ifj'khyu ds i'pkr~ Li"V gksrk gS fd izLrqr l=
ijh{k.k 198@2003 jkT; cuke jes'k vkfn eqdnek
vijk/k
la[;k
64@1997
vUrxZr
/kkjk
147]148]149]307]324]427] Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] Fkkuk
rjcxat] ftyk xks.Mk ls lEcfU/kr gSa i=koyh ,D'ku
Iyku ds vUrxZr izkphure oknksa dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS
vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ izLrqr l=
ijh{k.k esa fnukad 15-07-2023 dks vfHk;kstu lk{;
lekIr gksus ds mijkUr i=koyh vfHk;qDrx.k ds c;ku
vUrxZr /kkjk 313 lhvkjihlh gsrq fu;r dh x;hA
rRi'pkr fnukad 10-08-2023 c;ku vUrxZr /kkjk 313
lhvkjihlh vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k rFkk i=koyh lQkbZ
lk{; gsrq fu;r dh x;h] ftlds i'pkr~ vfHk;qDrx.k
dh vksj ls mijksDr rhuksa gh izkFkZuk i= la[;k 306[k]
307[k] 308[k] lQkbZ lk{; esa fofHkUu lkf{k;ksa dks
izLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ;gk¡ ;g
mYys[k djuk Hkh lehphu gksxk fd vfHk;qDrx.k dh
vksj vius mijksDr rhuksa gh izkFkZuk i= esa ftl fo'ks"k
cUnwd ,l0ch0ch0,y0 xu la[;k 26797 dk mYys[k
djrs gq, mDr cUnwd ds lanHkZ esa lEcfU/kr gsM
eksgfjZj }kjk tkjh dh x;h jlhn ds vk/kkj ij
rRdkyhu gsM eksgfjZj Fkkuk rjcxat ftyk xks.Mk rFkk
lEcfU/k izHkkjh vf/kdkjh 1⁄4vk;q/k1⁄2 dk;kZy; ftyk
eftLVasV xks.Mk dks nLrkosth; lk{;ksa ds lkFk lQkbZ
lk{; esa ryc fd;s tkus gsrq ;kpuk dh x;h gS mDr
fo'ks"k ykblsalh cUnwd ds lanHkZ esa oknh eqdnek }kjk
u rks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa dksbZ mYys[k fd;k x;k gS
vkSj ugh mDr fo'ks"k ykblsalh cUnwd dks lEcfU/kr
foospd }kjk foospuk esa lfEefyr fd;k x;k gS vkSj
u gh mDr ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ QnZ cjkenxh gh i=koyh
ij miyC/k gSA vr% fo'ks"k ykblsalh cUnwd ds tek
fd;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa tkjh jlhn ,oa vU; nLrkosth
lk{;ksa ds lkFk lEcfU/kr rRdkyhu gsM eksgfjZj o
11 All. Mathura Prasad @ Mathura Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
339
izHkkjh vf/kdkjh 1⁄4vk;q/k1⁄2 ftyk eftLVasV xks.Mk dks
lQkbZ lk{; esa ryc fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha
gS vkSj u gh izLrqr l= ijh{k.k ds izHkkoh ,oa lE;d~
U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq mDr lkf{k;ksa dks ryc fd;k tkuk
vko';d gh gSA tgk¡ rd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk izLrqr
izkFkZuk i= 306 [k esa vU; lkf{k;ksa 'kf'k 'ks[kj vks>k]
izoh.k dqekj JhokLro] jk?kojke ik.Ms;] lqjsUnz dqekj
frokjh] cCcu ik.Ms;] gfj'kadj c<+bZ] nsorknhu o
pUnzef.k frokjh dks rcy fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dk
iz'u gS rks mDr lkf{k;ksa ds lanHkZ esa vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk
;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS fd os izLrqr l= ijh{k.k
ds izHkkoh ,oa lE;d~ U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq fdl izdkj
vko';d gSa ,oa mDr O;fDr ?kVuk ls fdl izdkj tqMs+
gq, gSa fd muds lk{; ls vfHk;qDrx.k ykHk izkIr djus
ds vf/kdkjh gksxsaA ;gk¡ ;g mYys[k djuk Hkh lehphu
gksxk fd vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{kh ihMCyw- 07 gsM eksgfjZj txnh'k ik.Ms; ls vfHk;qDrx.k
dh vksj izfrijh{kk esa izkFkZuk i= esa mfYyf[kr fo'ks"k
ykblsalh cUnwd ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ Hkh iz'u ugha fd;k
x;k gS vkSj u gh vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk foospuk ds nkSjku
vius c;ku vUrxZr /kkjk 161 lhvkjihlh esa gh u rks
dksbZ dFku fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh dksbZ nLrkosth;
lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk mijksDr
rhuksa gh izkFkZuk i= ek= izLrqr l= ijh{k.k dks
foyfEcr fd;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls izLrqr fd;k tkuk
ifjyf{kr gksrk gSA

vr% mijksDr ekeys ds rF; ,oa
ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k dh
vksj izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

vkns'k

vkosnd@vfHk;qDrx.k eFkqjk izlkn ik.Ms;
vkfn }kjk Øe'k% izLrqr fd;s x;s izkFkZuk i= la[;k
306[k] 307[k] o 308[k] fujLr fd;s tkrs gSA i=koyh
okLrs cgl fnukad 30-10-2023 dks is'k gksA"

17. From the relevant portion of
impugned order dated 17.10.2023, quoted
above, it appears that for rejecting the
prayer to summon Head Moharrir P.S.-
Tarabganj, Distt.- Gonda and Prabhari
Adhikari (Ayudh), the trial court observed
that neither the informant has indicated
anything in the FIR with regard to the
licensed gun nor the same was made part of
the investigation report and as such there is
no requirement to summon these witnesses.
With regard to Head Moharrir P.S.-
Tarabganj, Distt.- Gonda namely, Jagdish
Pandey (P.W.:-7), the trial court in the
impugned order also observed that in crossexamination, no question was put to this
witness in relation to licensed gun nor the
accused in his statement made under
Section 161 CrPC has indicated the facts
related to same nor has produced the
documentary evidence in support of his
case. With regard to other witnesses
indicated in the application No.306 Kha,
the observation of the trial court is to the
effect that relevancy to summon the
witnesses has not been indicated.

18. It would be apt to refer that while
exercising power under Section 233(3) of
CrPC, the trial court on three grounds can
reject the application under Section
233(3) CrPC. Firstly, the applicantion
should
have
been
with
vexatious
intention;
secondly,
the
application
should have
been moved
with
an
intention of delaying the trial and third
ground for rejection available to the court
is that the application has been moved
with an intention of defeating the ends of
justice.

19. In the instant case, Head Moharrir
P.S.- Tarabganj, Distt.- Gonda was duly
examined and cross-examined and during
the cross-examination no such question was
put as observed in the order impugned and
to controvert the same, no document has
been placed on record by the applicant and
further, that in the FIR it has not been
indicated that the present applicant was
armed with gun and in fact in the FIR the
general allegations have been levelled
against all the accused and accordingly, the
observations made by the trial court in
rejecting the prayer to call the witnesses
namely, Head Moharrir and Prabhari
Adhikari (Ayudh) to the view of this Court
are justified.
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. So far as the other witnesses,
namely Sri Shashi Shekhar Ojha, Praveen
Kumar Srivastava, Raghav Ram Pandey,
Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Babban Pandey,
Harishanker
Barai,
Devdadeen
and
Chandramani Tiwari, indicated in the
Application No.306 Kha preferred by the
petitioner are concerned, it is to be noted
that the court has duty to call/summon
those
witnesses,
whose
testimony is
relevant and therefore, if an accused wants
to summon a witness then, he has to
explain to the court the reasons for the
same. In another words, the relevancy of
the witnesses is to be shown, pleaded and
proved.

21. From the application on record, it
is apparent that the relevancy to call the
witnesses namely Head Moharrir, Police
Station Tarabganj, District Gonda, Prabhari
Adhikari (Ayudh) and also Sri Shashi
Shekhar Ojha, Praveen Kumar Srivastava,
Raghav Ram Pandey, Surendra Kumar
Tiwari, Babban Pandey, Harishanker Barai,
Devdadeen and Chandramani Tiwari has
not been indicated. As such, the trial court
rightly rejected the Application No.306
Kha.

22. The trial court while rejecting the
applications preferred by the petitioner for
summoning
the
witnesses
specifically
observed that the applications have been
moved with an intention to delay the trial.
In the instant case, the FIR was lodged way
back on 14.07.1997 and as such, this
observation of the trial court appears to be
just and proper.

23. For the reasons aforesaid, this
Court affirms the specific findings given by
the
trial
court
while
rejecting
the
application(s) preferred by the applicant
and accordingly, this Court is of the view
that the application(s) have rightly been
rejected by the trial court and as such, the
present
application
is
liable
to
be
dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 11555 of 2023

Akhilesh Paswan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Santosh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 441-A - Declaration of
sureties - no bar for accepting a person as
surety even if he has stood as such, in
some other case/cases - Indian Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
201,302,307,364,392,411, Arms Act, 1959
- Sections- 3/25, The U.P. Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - section 3(1) - Neither the court nor
the accused can bind a surety to stand as
such in all the cases unless he himself is
willing to do so - pre condition for
accepting the surety - they should be fit or
competent, solvent and reliable. (Para - 8,
9, 10, 11)

Bail granted to applicant in all four cases - by
order of High Court passed on different dates -
directed to furnish two sureties in each of the
cases - applicant cannot arrange two sureties
for each case - Seeking direction to courts
below - to release petitioner on bail - accepting