Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the F.I.R.No.5 of 2026 on the file of B.Mattam Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District and pass

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018, whereby the order of the learned Trial Court was quashed and set aside and the accused was permitted to cross-examine the complainant.

2. The Respondent herein was facing the charge for an offence under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial before the learned Trial Court, when the complainant was in a witness box and was to be cross-examined by the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, because of the call for the strike of the Bar, the learned Advocate for the accused could not remain present before the trial court and cross-examine the complainant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 30.08.2017 had closed the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant. Thereafter, an Application vide Exh.31 was preferred by the accused praying for re-opening the right to cross-examine the complainant, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 9.07.2018. Against the said order the accused had preferred Criminal Revision Application before the learned Sessions Court being Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2018. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 20.09.2018 had allowed the said revision application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 9.07.2018 and the accused was permitted to cross-examine the complainant. It is against this order that the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Shivangi M. Rana appearing for the Petitioner. She submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is erroneous as the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent accused had failed to cross-examine the complainant despite ample opportunity being granted to him for the said purpose, and therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly closed the right of the Respondent accused to cross-examine the complainant. The learned Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the said order passed by the learned Trial Court. She therefore submitted to allow the present Petition and quash and set aside the order impugned in the present petition.

4. Learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State has submitted to pass appropriate order.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhavin B. Thakar appearing for the Respondents – Accused has opposed the Petition. He submitted that the complainant is ready and willing to deposit the cost as may be quantified by this Court. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Petition.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The issue involved in the present matter is in a very narrow compass. The issue pertains to the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant. From the record it appears that the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner could not remain present on a particular date and cross-examine the complainant because of the call for strike given by the Bar Association and, due to non-appearance of the learned Advocate, the learned Tr