Rajul Bhargava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shiv Babu Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is facing trial in S.T. No.243 of 2014 (State Versus Ram Bahori and others) under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda. It is submitted that last prosecution witness i.e. PW 11 was examined by the trial court on 5.12.2017 and the case was posted for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 6.12.2017. It transpires from the order-sheet of the trial court that on 6.12.2017 statement of Ram Bahori and Surendra Patel were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for defence evidence on 8.12.2017. On 8.12.2017 on behalf of accused, Surendra Patel who is still languishing in jail in aforesaid case, an application no.40Kha supported by documents 41Kha and 42Kha was moved. It was stated that revisionist, Surendra Patel was not present on the date of incident i.e. 14.6.2014 and had gone to Bilaspur, Chhattishgarh to appear in railway recruitment of ALP/Tech. mentioning roll number in the said application. It is further stated that in fact he had appeared in the examination on 15.6.2014 at 10.30 a.m. and was present and stayed in a Ran Basera Lodge, Station Road near Tarun Talkies, Durg from 10 a.m. on 14.6.2014. It is further? stated that the trial judge without recording any reason rejected the application for examining the defence witness on the ground that the same has been made in order to delay the proceeding.
(3.) I have gone through the impugned order and may record that learned trial Judge rejected the application moved on behalf of the applicant for adducing defence evidence on the ground that the said application does not disclose the name of any witness, its address and other particulars on account of which the said application cannot be allowed. Besides it, it appears that the trial Judge was also impressed of the fact that since in Criminal Bail Application No. 2840/2015 this Court vide order dated 12.9.2017 while refusing the bail to the applicant had directed to conclude the trial within three months and therefore the present application for adducing defence evidence has been given on his behalf in order to linger and delay the trial. It also observed that the documents furnished on behalf of the applicant are not admissible in evidence.;