Summoning of defence witnesses under Section 256 BNSS can only be refused by recording findings of vexation or delay.

The petitioners are facing trial for murder under Section 302 of the IPC in S.T.No.61/2021

Following the conclusion of prosecution evidence and the recording of accused statements under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the petitioners moved an application under Section 256 of the BNSS seeking to summon 24 defence witnesses

On 13.01.2026, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, partly rejected the application, limiting the number of witnesses to one per fact to be established

The petitioners challenged this order via a criminal revision

1. Whether the Trial Court can selectively restrict the number of defence witnesses under Section 256 of the BNSS without recording a finding of vexation or delay.

2. Whether the partial rejection of the application for summoning witnesses violates the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court applied Section 256 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 243(2) of the Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a Judge shall issue process for summoning witnesses unless the application is refused for reasons to be recorded on grounds of vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice

The court relied on the precedent of T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (2008) 5 SCC 633, which establishes that the right to adduce evidence is part of the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the court should not ordinarily interfere with the accused's discretion in proving their defence unless the prayer is bona fide

The High Court examined the Trial Court’s reasoning and found that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising discretion to "select" witnesses based on perceived sufficiency (limiting evidence to one witness per fact)

Under Section 256 of the BNSS, the Trial Court’s power to refuse a process is strictly contingent upon a written finding that the application is intended for "vexation or delay" or to "defeat the ends of justice"

The High Court noted that the Trial Court failed to record any such finding

By restricting the defence evidence, the Trial Court effectively denied the accused a fair opportunity to rebut the prosecution’s case and prove their innocence

The court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 regarding the rejection of the witness application. The application under Section 256 of the BNSS was allowed in full, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with summoning the listed witnesses