Bharat Bhushan, J. - (1.) Present application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 206 -A of 2006 (State v/s. Ram Singh) whereby the application Nos. 101 Kha and 103 Kha moved by applicant under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Santosh Singh, witness in defence was rejected.
(2.) It appears that applicant Ram Singh was facing trial along with three other accused persons under Sec. 302/120 -B IPC, P.S. Sureri, District Jaunpur. During pendency of the said trial, a bail application was moved by co accused Raghuraj Singh @ Raju before this Court, in which the following order was passed: - - "It is informed by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial is at the stage of final argument since last more than one year and is not being judgmented as the counsels for the other accused persons are not appearing to argue the case finally. Learned counsel for the applicant produced before me a photo copy of the order sheet. The order sheet dated 13.1.2009 indicates that the counsels for the other accused persons are lingering on the trial. It is also informed that other three accused persons Munna Singh, Ram Singh and Sani Singh are on bail and it is because of dexterity of the counsels of those accused persons in not arguing the case that the trial is not being concluded. It is also informed that presently the sessions trial, being S.T. No. 206 of 2006 (State v/s. Munna Singh and others) is pending before Additional Sessions Judge -I, district Jaunpur. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, I direct Additional Sessions Judge -I, Jaunpur to cancel the bail of rest of three accused persons namely Munna Singh, Ram Singh and Sani Singh in S.T. No. 206 of 2006 (State v/s. Munna Singh and others) forthwith and direct the S.S.P., Jaunpur to take all the accused persons in custody within 48 hours and lodged them in jail. Trial Judge, thereafter is directed to take up the aforesaid sessions trial for final hearing on day to day basis and conclude it positively within two weeks otherwise appear before this Court personally along with his explanation for not concluding the said trial. This IIIrd Bail Application is directed to come up before me again as part heard on 10.9.2009. It is made clear that if the trial Judge concludes the trial by the next date, he need not appear before me in person. Office is directed to intimate this order to the trial Judge by fax positively by tomorrow. "
(3.) In the light of the aforesaid order, trial was hastened and three accused persons namely Munna Singh, Raghuraj Prasad and one Sunny Singh were finally convicted vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jaunpur. But trial of applicant Ram Singh was separated and renumbered as S.T. No. 206 -A of 2006 (State v/s. Ram Singh). During his trial, one witness namely Santosh Singh was discharged by the prosecution and not produced before the trial court. During trial of other accused persons, an application was moved by co accused Sunny for summoning Santosh Singh, which was rejected vide order dated 9.8.2007 on the ground that the prosecution had closed the evidence and the statement of accused persons had already been recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Judge also opined that accused person can summon the said witness in defence and if required the court may also issue summons.;