Mohit @ Khalifa vs State Of Haryana

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
115

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2026
Mohit @ Khalifa ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside
of order dated 30.10.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jhajjar in case arising out of FIR No.240 dated 20.08.2021, registered
under Sections 148, 149 and 302 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS for recalling
PW-1 Satender for further cross-examination has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
complaint lodged by Satender alleging therein that on 20.08.2021 at about
06:15 PM, he along with Surender @ Gullar, Bijender and Sukhjinder was
sitting under the shed of the workshop of Surender @ Gullar situated on
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 08:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M) 2
Jhajjar-Bahadurgarh road. In the meantime, a grey coloured Swift car stopped
there. Four persons alighted from the car and started firing at Surender @
Gullar, while its driver remained seated inside. The assailants then fled
towards Jhajjar in the same car. Surender @ Gullar was taken to Civil
Hospital, Bahadurgarh, where he was declared dead. The FIR was registered
against unknown persons. The petitioner was arrested during investigation on
23.11.2021 and he is in custody since then.
3. During the course of trial, the complainant was examined as
PW-1 on 22.07.2025 and he was cross-examined on behalf of the accused on
the same day (Annexure P-2). On 14.05.2026, the petitioner moved an
application (Annexure P-5) under Section 348 of BNSS for recalling PW-1.
The only ground taken therein was that due to unavoidable circumstances and
reasons beyond the control of the accused and his counsel, the witness could
not be cross-examined effectively. Subsequently, Sukhjinder and Bijender
were examined as PW-11 and PW-26 on 21.09.2026 and 27.10.2026
respectively (Annexures P-3 and P-4). They did not support the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile. Vide the impugned order dated
30.10.2026, the trial Court dismissed the application by observing that the
petitioner had not even mentioned what remained to be asked from the
witness and how he could not be cross-examined effectively. It was also
observed that the entire trial already stood concluded and the case had been
made time bound by this Court. Aggrieved thereof, this petition has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 08:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M) 3
without appreciating the facts and evidence on record. It is further submitted
that PW-1 claimed in his deposition that he was sitting at the workshop along
with Bijender and Sukhjinder at the time of occurrence. However, both of
them have denied having witnessed the occurrence while appearing as PW-11
and PW-26. PW-11 has rather admitted in his cross-examination that
Satender was not present at the time of smoking hookah and had come to the
hospital. PW-26 has stated that he and Satender were present at village
Goyala Kalan when information about the firing was received. In view of
these statements, further cross-examination of PW-1 with regard to his
presence at the spot has become necessary for the just decision of the case.
The prosecution did not file any reply to the application. The trial Court has
dismissed the application only on the ground of conclusion of trial, whereas
defence evidence is yet to be led. The petitioner has been in custody since
23.11.2021.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition,
has argued that the application was moved at a belated stage with the sole
purpose of delaying the trial. The petitioner did not disclose any reason as to
why PW-1 was required to be recalled. Since the other private witnesses have
turned hostile, the application is nothing but an attempt to frustrate the case of
the prosecution. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable
length, besides going through the material placed on record.
8. Section 348 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') , empowers the Court
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 08:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M) 4
to summon, recall or re-examine any person at any stage of the trial, if his
evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In Rajaram
Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, (2013) 14 SCC 461 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out the principles governing the exercise of
this power and held that the wide discretion has to be exercised judiciously
and not arbitrarily. It was held that the Court must satisfy itself that it is in
every respect essential to recall the witness for arriving at a just decision of
the case. Reference can also be made to State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar
Yadav and another, (2016) 2 SCC 402 , wherein the accused had sought
recall of prosecution witnesses on the plea that they had not been effectively
cross-examined by his previous counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that recall is not a matter of course and cannot be allowed for the asking or
for reasons of mere convenience. It was further held that there must be
tangible reasons to show how the fair trial has suffered without recall. The
mere fact of the accused being in custody was held to be no consideration for
allowing recall, particularly at the fag end of the trial.
9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the application
(Annexure P-5) is conspicuously vague. It neither discloses what the
unavoidable circumstances were nor spells out the aspects on which PW-1
could not be cross-examined. The deposition of PW-1 (Annexure P-2) rather
shows that he was cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused on the
very day of his examination-in-chief. He was questioned about the time of his
arrival at the workshop, the manner of occurrence, the shifting of the
deceased to the hospital, the lodging of the complaint and the identity of the
assailants. The application was moved on 14.05.2026, which was about ten
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 08:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M) 5
months after the witness had been discharged. No explanation for this delay
is forthcoming. On such a bald application, the trial Court was justified in
declining the request.
10. The argument founded upon the statements of PW-11 and PW-
26 does not advance the case of the petitioner for more than one reason.
Firstly, this ground was neither pleaded in the application nor does it find
mention in the impugned order. The application was filed on 14.05.2026,
whereas PW-11 and PW-26 entered the witness box much later on
21.09.2026 and 27.10.2026. The averment made in the petition about the
application having been filed after recording of their statements is thus
contrary to the record. The order of the trial Court cannot be faulted on a
ground which was not pleaded before it. Secondly, the presence of PW-1 at
the spot was specifically put in issue during his cross-examination. It was
suggested to him that he was not present at the time of the murder and had
been planted as an eye-witness by the Investigating Officer, which he denied.
Thirdly, the fact of PW-11 and PW-26 having given a different version about
the whereabouts of PW-1 is a matter of appreciation of evidence. Both these
witnesses resiled from their earlier statements and the effect of their
testimony on the evidence of PW-1 is to be evaluated by the trial Court at the
final stage. The petitioner would be well within his rights to rely upon their
testimony at the time of final arguments to assail the credibility of PW-1.
Recall of PW-1 merely to confront him with what other witnesses have
deposed after him cannot be said to be essential, when the defence version
already stands put to him and no specific question left to be asked has been
disclosed.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 08:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2681-2026 (O&M) 6
11. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the
correctness, legality or propriety of the order under challenge. The trial Court
has exercised its discretion on relevant considerations and the view taken by
it is a plausible one. No illegality, impropriety or perversity is found in the
impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court.
12. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. It
is, however, clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or on the credibility of any
witness. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas available to him
at the time of final arguments, which shall be considered by the trial Court in
accordance with law.

12.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 08:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document