SUNIL BHAGAT @ SUNIL GUPTA, SON OF BINOD BHAGAT @ BINOD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HIRASAR BANDH, P.O., P.S. & DISTRICT JAMTARA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. N.P. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 101.2016 passed by the learned Session Judge, Jamtara in S.T. Case No. 19 of 2013 whereby and where under the application preferred by the prosecution under Sec. 311 of the Crimial P.C. has been allowed and the prosecution has been directed to examine five non charge-sheeted witnesses.

(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier an attempt was made by the prosecution to examine one of the non-charge-sheeted witness namely, Rajkishore Singh, but the same was refused by the learned court below on 104.2014 and on the garb of an application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. the prosecution has once again prayed for examination of five non-charge-sheeted witnesses which was allowed by the learned court below vide impugned order dated 12.01.2016 without assigning any valid reasons. Learned counsel submits that the principle which has been culled out by the Honourable Supreme Court with respect to the principles guiding an application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 has not been followed by the learned trial court. It has been stated that mere mentioning about the fact that in the interest of justice the application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. cannot be allowed as the same is not backed up with any cogent and justifiable reasons.