Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Tarun Kumar, S/o. Pradyuman Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
National Investigation Agency (NIA) – Opp. Party
Cr. M.P. No. 980 of 2025
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Adv.
For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I., Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A. (Bihar).
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

The power to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised if essential for a just trial; court-mandated witness protection measures should be employed to mitigate security risks rather than denying the accused the fundamental right to cross-examine.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 - Power to recall or re-examine witnesses - Essentiality for just decision of the case - The court is obligated to recall witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision -

(B) Witness Protection - Special statutory provisions - Balancing the right to cross-examine with witness security - Protecting a witness does not justify the total denial of the accused’s right to cross-examination; rather, the court must employ statutory protective measures to ensure both safety and a fair trial. (Paras 8, 9, 11, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The accused filed a petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to recall a protected witness for cross-examination. The trial court had denied the request, citing the security risks faced by the protected witness and the failure of the defense to cross-examine the witness on the previously scheduled date due to the unavailability of the lead counsel.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the right to effectively challenge evidence is a crucial component of a fair trial. It concluded that the trial court's reliance on the security of the witness was misplaced as a reason for complete denial, especially when specialized statutory provisions exist to provide security measures while allowing for testimony to be vetted.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting an application to recall a witness for cross-examination under the apprehension of security risks and previous procedural defaults.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to recall a witness under Section 311 must be exercised to ensure a just decision. When an accused seeks to cross-examine a witness on a crucial aspect, the right to a fair trial must be balanced with witness protection. If necessary, courts should implement in-camera proceedings or identity-masking measures as provided by law, rather than refusing the right to cross-examine.

Result: Trial court order set aside; the application to recall the witness for cross-examination was allowed with directions to the trial court to implement appropriate security measures.

Table of Content
1. procedural context of nia investigation and challenged witness recall application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflicting arguments regarding fair trial versus witness protection concerns. (Para 5 , 6)
3. essentiality of cross-examination for just decision-making under section 311 crpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. balancing statutory witness protection (nia act) with the accused's right to cross-examination. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court order mandating cross-examination while ensuring witness safety protocols. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA.

2. In this application, petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI cum Special Judge NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2404/2024 corresponding to Special NIA Case No. 01/2022 arising out of RC Case No. 05/2021/NIA/RNC, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.3 for further cross-examination has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case reveals that the Central Government had received information that some prominent cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organization, Pradyuman Sharma alias Saket alias Kundan alias Sudhanshu alias Kunal alias Nakul alias Laden (petitioner no. 2) along with Yogendra Ravidas alias Lighter, Nagendra Giri, Abhinav alias Gaurav alias Bittu, Dhananjay Paswan and others are conspiring to revive the CPI (Maoist) in Magadh zone. The allegation is such that in furtherance of this sinister motive, they have conspired to raise funds for procurement of arms and ammunitions and of imparting training of cadres in IED’S fabrication and to liaise with incarcerated Naxals, OGW’s in various jails for commission of terrorist activities.

4. After considering the gravity of the offence and in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section 5 of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division vide Order F. No. 11011/79/2021/NIA dated 27.12.2021 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the said case. In compliance to the same, NIA Ranchi had registered the case as RC No. 05/2021/NIA/RNC under Section 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the NIA in which the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2 respectively. After cognizance was taken, the trial proceeded and in course of trial one protected witness being P.W.3 was examined and discharged on 09.07.2024 without cross-examination. On the same day, an application was moved by the defence seeking time to cross-examine P.W.3 as the main counsel was out of the country but the learned trial court had rejected the same. The petitioners had later on filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.3 for cross-examination in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2404/2024 which, however, was rejected on 30.9-2024 and which is the order impugned to the present application.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 has been passed contrary to the basic purpose and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is embedded on it. The counsel for the petitioners was out of the country which was the reason for the petitioners to seek deferment of the cross-examination of P.W.3, but without considering such genuine grievance, the impugned order has been passed. Mr. Poddar has submitted that P.W.3 in his Examination-in-Chief has given evidence against the petitioners and in order to mount a challenge to such assertions, P.W.3 has to be cross-examined otherwise the same would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIRONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.Tarun Kumar, S/o. Pradyuman Sharma – Petitioner VersusNational Investigation Agency (NIA) – Opp. PartyCr. M.P. No. 980 of 2025Decided On : 15-04-2026

The power to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised if essential for a just trial; court-mandated witness protection measures should be employed to mitigate security risks rather than denying the accused the fundamental right to cross-examine.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Tarun Kumar, S/o. Pradyuman Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
National Investigation Agency (NIA) – Opp. Party
Cr. M.P. No. 980 of 2025
Decided On : 15-04-2026