Gujarat High Court
Mobin Bilal Meman vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4892/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4892 of 2025
==========================================================
MOBIN BILAL MEMAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NEEL S JOGRANA(14204) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the sides, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, below Exh:647 in Criminal Case No.30440/2013, whereby, learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for opening his right to cross- examine the witnesses as well as the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision Application No. 82 2025 and be pleased to allow the application filed below Exh:647 in Criminal Case No.30440/2013.
4) At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no objection if petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and application filed below Exh:647 is allowed.
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:40:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4892/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined
5) As grievance raised by learned Public Prosecutor that after long time, if witnesses have been recalled, possibility cannot be ruled out to forget his memory, but it is needless to say that under the BNSS, there is a provision to refresh the memory. Even otherwise, the Court may exercise due care and caution while recording the evidence. Hence, considering the principle of fair trial and with a view to give a fair chance to the petitioner for cross-examine the witnesses. At the same, time, it also appears that on sweet will of the petitioner, such application should not be allowed as he has filed an application quite after a long delay, however, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 309(2) of the Cr.P.C., trial is required to be conducted on day-to-day basis. Though witnesses appeared before the trial Court, the petitioner has not cross-examined and the petitioner remained negligent to exercise right.
6) However, considering the conduct of the petitioner and facts of the case, the petitioner is required to be saddled with appropriate cost. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- before district legal services authority concerned within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
7) For the foregoing reasons, petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses on appointed date fixed by the learned trial Court.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:40:24 IST 2025