# Smt. Ramvati v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 959
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 50778 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ramvati-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54424
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

4 All. Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation (supra) emphasized the distinction between a civil
wrong (breach of contract) and a criminal offence, noting that criminal liability arises when elements like
fraudulent or dishonest intention are present. The lack of dishonest intention can lead to the quashing of
proceedings under Section 406 I.P.C. Dishonest intention is the sine qua non of the offence of criminal
breach of trust. Mere failure to account for money does not constitute criminal breach of trust. The
prosecution must establish that the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property. A mere
civil liability to pay does not attract Section 406 I.P.C. as held by the Apex Court in Velji Raghavji Mehta
Vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1965 SC 1433).

20. The Delhi Race Club case [Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2024)
10 SCC 690], is a recent Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that commercial disputes should not be
criminalized unless clear evidence of dishonest intention exists. It is now a strong authority for quashing
criminal complaints in business debt recovery matters.

21. In the present complaint, it appears that a sum of money had been lent by the complainant to the
opposite party no. 1 (applicant no. 1 herein) for buying a plot as he was running short of amount to enable
him to purchase the property. There were no clear instructions as to how the money has to be used for a
specific purpose. There is clear admission on the part of the complainant that the money had been provided to
the opposite party no. 1 (applicant no. 1 herein) to enable him to purchase the plot.

22. The trial court has clearly ignored this aspect of law and the summoning order dated 10.07.2019
passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 4, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 629 of 2017
(Suresh Chandra Vs. Amar Singh and Ors.) u/s 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh, suffers
from non-application of judicial mind and is unsustainable and is hereby quashed.

23. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 959
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 50778 of 2025

Smt. Ramvati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
The matter arises from a double-murder trial where a material prosecution witness (the father of the
deceased victim) supported the case in his examination-in-chief but completely retracted his testimony during
cross-examination. Three years later, the victim's mother sought to recall and re-examine him u/s 311 CrPC,
claiming his retraction was forced by threats.
Headnotes
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (BNSS 2023)-Section 482/528, Section 311-Recall/Reexamination of witness-Scope of power- Filling up of lacuna-Belated applicaiton-Prayer to recall
and re-examine a material prosecution witness(PW-3)-Witness supported the prosecution in
examination-in-chief
but
completely
resiled
and
retracted
in
cross-examination-recall
application moved by the mother after a belated gap of more than three years from crossexamination alleging that the witness had resiled under threat-Power u/s 311 CrPC is highly
discretionary, it must be exercised judicially-It cannot be invoked at a belated stage to fill up a
lacuna in the prosecution case-Allegations of threat and coercion remained completely
unsubstantiated as no date, time or particulars of incidents were disclosed-Order of the Trial
Court rejecting the recall application upheld.(Para 10 to 16)
Held
The court ruled that the power u/s 311 CrPC cannot be invoked at a belated stage of more than three years
to fill up a lacuna in the prosecution case. Unsubstantiated and delayed allegations of threat and coercion
cannot be accepted as valid ground for recalling a witness when no timely complaint was ever made to the
police or the court. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar & Anr, (2013) 14 SCC 461,-referred to.

List of Acts
Criminal Procedure code, 1973. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

List of Keywords
Section 311 CrPC, Recall of witness, Re-examination, Hostile witness, Retraction of Testimony, Crossexamination, Filling up of lacuna, Belated application, Threat and Coercion, Prejudice to Accused.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.- 50778 OF 2025 20.04.2026
Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others
From the judgment and order dated 20.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Applicant(s)
Saksham Srivastava
Adv. for Opposite Party(s)
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA-I Shri Ratan
Singh for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to set aside
the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge
(4th), District Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No. 50 of 2020 (State Vs. Sukhmeet and
Others) in Case Crime No. 1310 of 2019 under sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Surajpur,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending before the concerned Court, whereby the learned Court has
rejected the application moved by the applicant under section 311 Cr.P.C in a very routine and
mechanical manner which is being annexed as Annexure No.2 to this present application, and to
further direct the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (4th) District Gautam
4 All. Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
961
Budh Nagar to allow the P.W.-3 i.e., to be re-examined during the pendency of the aforesaid
Session Trial.

3. To narrate the brief facts, the applicant Ramvati is the mother of the deceased Rahul who
moved an application dated 14.08.2025 (38Kha) under section 311 Cr.P.C. praying for the reexamination of P.W.-3, Rishipal Singh (Father of the deceased).

4. In the instant matter, an FIR No. 1310 of 2019 was lodged on 03.09.2019 at 14:28 under
sections 302, 201 I.P.C. by one Shri Harendra Singh at Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam
Budh Nagar against unknown persons stating that two dead bodies were found lying in the jungle at
village Jumpat in the field of Jagat Singh, near the service road. Both the deceased appeared to
have been fire shot and thrown away in the field. During investigation, it was found that one of the
deceased was son of the applicant namely Rahul and the other was Kuldeep Nagar, s/o Hari
Narayan Singh. After the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the respondentaccused Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Sukhmeet, Yogesh alias Bachhi and Saurabh Rana.

5. During trial, the examination-in-chief of P.W.-3, Rishipal (father of the deceased Rahul)
was recorded on 23.09.2021 and cross-examination was recorded on 28.07.2022.

6. The prosecution witness No.3, Rishipal, in his examination-in-chief supported the
prosecution case but in his cross-examination, did not support the prosecution case and had
retracted and resiled from his previous testimony. The said witness was not declared hostile and
was not re-examined.

7. Thereafter, on 14.8.2025, the applicant moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C.
(38-kha) for recalling the prosecution witness, P.W.-3 Rishipal and to re-examine him on certain
grounds as her husband, Rishipal did not swear the evidence out of his own free will and volition
and had deposed under the coercion and threat meted out to him by local villagers who had close
affinity with the accused persons and the accused persons posed a threat by going to the extent of
eliminating him. An affidavit dated 06.10.2025 43-kha supporting the said application sworn by
P.W.-3, Rishipal was filed after a gap of about 50 days affirming the facts mentioned in the
application.

8. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for
the accused rejected the application vide order impugned dated 10.11.2025 on the ground that
P.W.-3, in his examination-in-chief dated 23.09.2021, had fully supported the prosecution case and
due to paucity of time, the said witness was cross-examined on 28.07.2022 who retracted in his
cross-examination and did not support the prosecution case and further deposed that he had given
his testimony without any fear or coercion and was true and correct.

9. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the aforesaid facts.

10. Upon having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone
through the material on record, it transpires that though the said witness in his cross-examination
had completely resiled from the evidence adduced by him during his examination-in-chief but was
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not declared hostile by the prosecution and was neither re-examined. After a gap of about 3 years,
the applicant moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C for the re-examination of P.W.-3 to
fulfil the lacuna and to make improvements. The trial is still at the stage of evidence, eight
prosecution witnesses have been examined and no evidence under section 313 Cr.P.C. has been
recorded.

11. It has been noticed that previously on 05.10.2023, the applicant moved an application
under section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examining P.W.-3 but no fact was disclosed that P.W.-3 was under
threat perception or coercion and the said application was not moved by the public prosecutor but
was moved under the signature of the private counsel and no signature of the prosecution witness
or the first informant was found and the same was rejected.

12. Subsequently, applicant moved another application dated 14.08.2025 (38kha) through
Assistant Public Prosecutor wherein the parties have been heard and impugned order has been
passed rejecting the application on merit.

13. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, it can be said that the application (38-kha) has been
moved by the applicant, Smt. Ramwati (mother of deceased, Rahul) who is neither the first
informant nor an eye witness nor has been examined as a prosecution witness. The P.W.-3, Rishipal
(father of the deceased-Rahul) is a material witness and he in his examination-in- chief dated
23.09.2021 had supported the prosecution case. Thereafter, after a gap of ten months and five days,
the said witness was cross-examined on 28.7.2022 wherein the witness retracted and resiled from
his previous testimony. Despite the said fact, the P.W.-3 was not declared hostile by the
prosecution and was neither re-examined. The trial is in progress and the application dated
14.08.2025 under section 311 Cr.P.C has been moved by the applicant at a belated stage after a gap
of more than three years to fulfil the lacuna in a prosecution case and to reopen and to avail another
opportunity to reconcile the discrepancies if any between the statements in the examination-in-chief
and cross examination and further to explain any statement inadvertently made in cross
examination and to remove any ambiguity in the deposition or suspicion caste on the evidence by
cross examination and to re-examine P.W.-3, which may cause serious prejudice to the accused and
may result in the miscarriage of justice. It appears that the applicant-mother has been sponsored by
P.W.-3, Rishipal to rectify and improve the misgivings that happened while adducing his evidence
during his testimony. The records reveal that applicant, Smt. Ramwati moved the application under
section 311 Cr.P.C. on 14.08.2025 and the affidavit supporting the application has been sworn by
P.W.-3 on 06.10.2025 after a gap of about 50 days with an averment that the contents of the
application were in his personal knowledge but not a single instance i.e. date, time, place and other
particulars has been disclosed or claimed that the evidence tendered during examination in chief or
cross examination was not out of his own free will and volition but due to threat and coercion
meted out to him in past five years from the accused or his associates though the applicant and her
husband, Rishipal had ample opportunity to lodge the complaint or raise their grudge before the
learned Trial Judge or to the Police Officers or to any prosecution agency but both remain
indifferent and silent throughout.
4 All. Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
14. In the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Ram Prasad
Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2013 (14) SCC 461, the Court has very exhaustively
discussed the law on the subject of Section 311 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

 "A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest of the powers
have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to
recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the
expression ?any? has been used as a pre-fix to ?court?, ?inquiry?, ?trial?, ?other proceeding?,
?person as a witness?, ?person in attendance though not summoned as a witness?, and ?person
already examined?. By using the said expression ?any? as a pre-fix to the various expressions
mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the Court was
only in relation to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of
the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the
Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such reexamination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as
it comes to the question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at the desire of any person
under Section 138, will have to necessarily be in consonance with the prescription contained in
Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its
application in a particular case can be ordered by the Court, only by bearing in mind the object
and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us
earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage in
any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for the purpose of summoning any
person as a witness or for examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as
witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined. Insofar as recalling and reexamination of any person already examined, the Court must necessarily consider and ensure that
such recall and re-examination of any person, appears in the view of the Court to be essential for
the just decision of the case. Therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that
purpose the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To put it
differently, while such a widest power is invested with the Court, it is needless to state that exercise
of such power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution.

 15. In this context, we also wish to make a reference to certain decisions rendered by this
Court on the interpretation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. where, this Court highlighted as to the basic
principles which are to be borne in mind, while dealing with an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. In the decision reported in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1968
SC 178, this Court held as under in paragraph 14:-

 "14. It would appear that in our criminal jurisdiction, statutory law confers a power in
absolute terms to be exercised at any stage of the trial to summon a witness or examine one present
in court or to recall a witness already examined, and makes this the duty and obligation of the
Court provided the just decision of the case demands it. In other words, where the court exercises
the power under the second part, the inquiry cannot be whether the accused has brought anything
suddenly or unexpectedly but whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed
by it for a just decision of the case. If the court has acted without the requirements of a just
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision, the action is open to criticism but if the court's action is supportable as being in aid of a
just decision the action cannot be regarded as exceeding the jurisdiction." (Emphasis added)

 16. In the decision reported in Mohanal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and another -
1991 Suppl.(1) SCC 271, this Court again highlighted the importance of the power to be exercised
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as under

 in paragraph 10:-

 "10?.In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the
salutary provisions of Section 540 of the Code (Section 311 of the new Code) are enacted
whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or
other proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though
not summoned as a witness or recall or re- examine any person in attendance though not
summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined who are expected to
be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute; because if judgments happen to be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, the ends of justice would be defeated."

 17. In the decision in Raj Deo Sharma (II) vs. State of Bihar - 1999 (7) SCC 604, the
proposition has been reiterated as under in paragraph 9:-

 "9. We may observe that the power of the court as envisaged in Section 311 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has not been curtailed by this Court. Neither in the decision of the fiveJudge Bench in A.R. Antulay case nor in Kartar Singh case such power has been restricted for
achieving speedy trial. In other words, even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance
with the directions contained in the main judgment it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the
powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code. We make it clear that if evidence of any witness
appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case it is the duty of the court to
summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.? (Emphasis added)

 18. In U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr. vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan -
2006 (7) SCC 529, the decision has been further elucidated as under in paragraph 15:-

 "15. A conspectus of authorities referred to above would show that the principle is well
settled that the exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC should be resorted to only with the
object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to a just and
correct decision of the case, this being the primary duty of a criminal court. Calling a witness or
re-examining a witness already examined for the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable
the court to arrive at a just decision of the case cannot be dubbed as ?filling in a lacuna in the
prosecution case? unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise
of power by the court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused resulting in
miscarriage of justice." (Emphasis added)

 19. In Iddar & Ors. vs. Aabida & Anr. - AIR 2007 SC 3029, the object underlying under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., has been stated as under in paragraph 11:-
4 All. Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965
 "11. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of
justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is
whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit
of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a
witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and
not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries
and trials under the Code and empowers Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage
of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is ?at
any stage of inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code?. It is, however, to be borne in
mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the
discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the
necessity for application of judicial mind." (Emphasis added)

 20. In P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P.- AIR 2012 SC 2242, the scope of Section 311
Cr.P.C. has been highlighted by making reference to an earlier decision of this Court and also with
particular reference to the case, which was dealt with in that decision in paragraphs 13 and 16,
which are as under:-

 "13. Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence was the object of
every fair trial, observed this Court in Hoffman Andreas v. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar (2000)
10 SCC 430. The following passage is in this regard apposite:

 "In such circumstances, if the new counsel thought to have the material witnesses further
examined, the Court could adopt latitude and a liberal view in the interest of justice, particularly
when the court has unbridled powers in the matter as enshrined in Section 311 of the Code. After
all the trial is basically for the prisoners and courts should afford the opportunity to them in the
fairest manner possible"

 16. We are conscious of the fact that recall of the witnesses is being directed nearly four
years after they were examined-in-chief about an incident that is nearly seven years old. Delay
takes a heavy toll on the human memory apart from breeding cynicism about the efficacy of the
judicial system to decide cases within a reasonably foreseeable time period. To that extent the
apprehension expressed by Mr. Rawal, that the prosecution may suffer prejudice on account of a
belated recall, may not be wholly without any basis. Having said that, we are of the opinion that on
a parity of reasoning and looking to the consequences of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses, we would prefer to err in favour of the appellant getting an opportunity rather than
protecting the prosecution against a possible prejudice at his cost. Fairness of the trial is a virtue
that is sacrosanct in our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. A possible
prejudice to prosecution is not even a price, leave alone one that would justify denial of a fair
opportunity to the accused to defend himself." (Emphasis added)

 21. In a recent decision of this Court in Sheikh Jumman vs. State of Maharashtra - (2012)
9 SCALE 80, the above referred to decisions were followed.
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 22. Again in an unreported decision rendered by this Court dated 08.05.2013 in Natasha
Singh vs. CBI (State)- Criminal Appeal No.709 of 2013, where one of us was a party, various other
decisions of this Court were referred to and the position has been stated as under in paragraphs 14
and 15:

 "14. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth
and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such
facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not
capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to
undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a
lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to
cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the
opposite party. Further the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to
change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised,
provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue
involved. An opportunity of rebuttal, however, must be given to the other party.

 The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must, therefore, be invoked by the Court
only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be
exercised with great caution and circumspection.

 The very use of words such as ?any Court?, ?at any stage?, or ?or any enquiry?, trial or
other proceedings?, ?any person? and ?any such person? clearly spells out that the provisions of
this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the
Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just
decision of the case. The determinative factor should, therefore, be whether the
summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.

 15. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to
ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the
interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of
fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a
constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no circumstances can a person?s right to fair
trial be jeopardized. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of
such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that the rules of procedure
that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous
in ensuring that there is no breach of the same. (Vide Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam
Mondkar & Anr., AIR 1958 SC 376; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. v.

State of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3114; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of
Gujarat & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) (2007) 2
SCC 258; Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 136; and Sudevanand v. State
through C.B.I. (2012) 3 SCC 387.)"
4 All. Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967
 23. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the
following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts:

 a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether
the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a
case?

 b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should
ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation
of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.

 c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of
the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such
person.

 d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only
with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a
just and correct decision of the case.

 e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a
prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise
of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in
miscarriage of justice.

 f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

 g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a
witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

 h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to
determine the truth and to render a just decision.

 i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because
it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure
of justice without such evidence being considered.

 j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while
exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed
from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not
brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such
mistakes to be rectified.

 k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the
prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather
than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court
should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead
to undesirable results.

 l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of
the case against any of the party.

 m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be
tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is
given to the other party.

 n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in
order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with
care, caution and circumspection. 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
to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right."

15. In view of the foregoing discussions and applying the various principles set out above,
the factors noted by the Trial Court and the conclusion drawn are all appropriate and just and the
order impugned does not call for any interference. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial from
the stage it was left and conclude the same, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

16. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 968
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13548 of 2026

Aman Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation,
recovery of alleged stolen articles from the possession of applicant, period of incarceration, and the likelihood
of delay in conclusion of trial, the accused-applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of
trial.

Headnotes