A final opportunity to cross-examine a material eyewitness was warranted to ensure a fair trial.

The applicant sought to set aside orders dated 2 September 2026 and 10 September 2026 in a Sessions Trial arising from Case Crime No. 0555 of 2025.

The trial court had closed the applicant’s opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, Smt. Mamta, under Section 346(2) of the BNSS, after the applicant’s counsel failed to appear on the date fixed for cross-examination.

The trial court subsequently rejected the applicant’s application under Section 348 of the BNSS to recall the witness.

The applicant submitted that PW-1 was a material eyewitness and that he was ready to cross-examine her without seeking further adjournments; the State did not oppose one further opportunity subject to conditions.

Whether the applicant should be granted a further opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 after the trial court had closed that opportunity and rejected an application to recall her

Whether the impugned orders should be set aside and the opportunity to cross-examine granted subject to conditions preventing further delay

The Court considered Sections 346(2), 348 and 528 of the BNSS, and the fair-trial guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It treated cross-examination of a material prosecution witness as an important component of a fair opportunity to defend oneself, while recognising that any renewed opportunity could be made conditional to avoid undue delay.

PW-1 was identified as an eyewitness and material witness, and the Court considered that denying the applicant an effective opportunity to cross-examine her could prejudice his defence.

In light of the applicant’s stated readiness to proceed and the State’s lack of objection to one further opportunity, the Court concluded that allowing cross-examination would serve the interests of justice without unduly delaying the trial.

It therefore made the opportunity final and required the applicant to complete cross-examination on the date fixed, without seeking an unnecessary adjournment.

It directed the trial court to secure PW-1’s presence and permit the applicant to cross-examine her on the date fixed.

This was a final opportunity; if not availed, the trial court was to proceed according to law without granting a further adjournment for cross-examination.