JHARKHAND HC: FAIR TRIAL PREVAILS OVER SAFETY CONCERNS; NIA COURT DIRECTED TO RECALL PROTECTED WITNESS
Cr. M.P. No. 980 of 2025
By Sandhya Kaika
In a significant reaffirmation of the right to a fair trial, the Jharkhand High Court has set aside an order of the Special NIA Court that had denied the recall of a crucial protected witness (P.W.3) for cross-examination.
The case involves petitioners Tarun Kumar and Pradyuman Sharma, who are accused of participating in a conspiracy to revive the banned CPI (Maoist) organization in the Magadh zone. They face serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, including allegations of terror funding and imparting IED training.
On July 9, 2024, P.W.3 was discharged without being cross-examined due to the absence of the petitioners’ lead counsel, who was abroad at the time. A subsequent application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness was rejected by the Special NIA Court. The court relied on two primary grounds. First, that the defense had cross-examined other witnesses, namely P.W.4 and P.W.5, during the same period. Second, that there was a serious threat to the witness, particularly in light of the murder of another protected witness in the case.
The High Court found this reasoning to be overly rigid and unsustainable. It emphasized that cross-examination of P.W.3 was essential for arriving at a just decision and for preventing a miscarriage of justice, especially given the gravity of the charges.
The High Court also observed that Section 17 of the NIA Act provides sufficient mechanisms to ensure witness protection, including in-camera proceedings and concealment of identity, without compromising the accused’s right to a fair defense.
Importantly, the High Court noted that there was no material linking the petitioners to the murder of the earlier protected witness, which weakened the prosecution’s argument regarding heightened risk.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Special NIA Court to recall P.W.3 and permit cross-examination. While no strict timeline was imposed due to security concerns, the High Court instructed that the process be carried out expeditiously once adequate protective measures are in place.
