Dismissed

Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLMP/371/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the rejection of an application to recall an Investigating Officer (PW-8). The Court held that the trial, pending since 2017, would be unduly delayed if the witness were recalled, finding no justifiable reason to grant the said application.

What did the court decide?

concerned application for recalling PW-8 in the witness box to clarify the physical verification issue under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was rejected.

Angrej Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21161]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 371/2024

¶4

Angrej Singh S/o Deewan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Pakki Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Umesh	Kant Vyas.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mohd.	Javed Gouri,PP.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

10/05/2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order.

¶14

Having gone through the impugned order dated 12.12.2023, this Court finds that statements of the Investigating Officer-Vijay Kumar (PW-8) were recorded before the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar on 29.02.2020. The petitioner, after about two years of the recording of the statements of PW-8, filed an application dated 12.12.2023 praying inter alia that PW-8 may be recalled in the witness box so as to clarify as to why, the physical verification of samples in conformity of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was got done by him after two years.

¶15

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner failed to furnish any justifiable reason for moving an application for recalling PW-8 in the witness box after two years from the date of recording of his statements.

¶16

[2024:RJ-JD:21161]

¶17

[CRLMP-371/2024]

¶18

In the opinion of this Court, the learned court below has rightly rejected the application for recalling of the witness vide order dated 12.12.2023 as the petitioner, by way of filing such application, intends to delay the trial which is pending since 2017.

¶19

In the opinion of this Court, no party can be permitted to delay the trial without any justifiable reason. The right of the petitioner to have a fair trial has not been infringed by the learned court below in any manner.

¶20

In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 warranting interference by this Court.

¶21

Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶22

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶23

288-Tikam/-

Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra @ Ravi Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajeev Dhunna @ Jyoti @ Rajeev Soni @ Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan