Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), by the accused for the grant of regular bail in FIR under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 427 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., found that trial proceedings were not carried out properly and thus sought an explanation from the Trial Judge concerned regarding the delay of seven weeks in conducting cross-examination of the key witness. The Court accordingly deferred the hearing of the case.
During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that one prosecution witness was partly cross-examined in July 2025, and his remaining cross-examination was deferred to another day in September 2025. The Trial Court was then directed to send the report detailing the status and progress of the trial.
The petitioner contended that the hearing of the instant case be conducted after the remaining cross-examination of the prime prosecution witness gets recorded before the Trial Court.
The Court opined that in the interest of justice, the hearing would be deferred to 29-9-2025 with reserved liberty in favour of the rival parties to place on record the complete testimony of the star prosecution witness.
Considering the postponement of seven weeks and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, the Court held that the way trial proceedings were carried out appeared to be in derogation of the principles of fair trial. Therefore, the Court sought explanation from the Trial Judge concerned.
[Rohit v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-18120-2025 (O&M), decided on 11-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate and J.S. Sohal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana and Sanjeev Kumar Birla, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
