Mohammad Yaqoob Beigh v. Union Territory of J&K, 2026
It confirms that Section 299 CrPC is an exception to the general rule that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused.
Judgement Details
Court
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Date of Decision
15 March 2026
Judges
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
FIR registered under NDPS Act and Motor Vehicles Act; three accused were charge-sheeted.
-
Two accused were arrested and tried; the petitioner had absconded during investigation.
-
Section 299 CrPC proceedings were initiated to record evidence of prosecution witnesses in the absence of the petitioner.
-
Upon surrender, the petitioner admitted the depositions recorded during his absence and did not seek recall of witnesses.
-
Prosecution moved to recall witnesses for cross-examination specific to the petitioner; the trial court allowed it.
Issues
-
Whether the prosecution can recall witnesses already examined under Section 299 CrPC after the accused appears and admits depositions?
-
Whether recalling witnesses gives additional advantage to the prosecution contrary to law?
Held
-
Trial court order allowing recall of witnesses was set aside.
-
Petition was allowed, and prosecution’s application to recall witnesses was quashed.
Analysis
-
Confirms that Section 299 CrPC is an exception to the general rule that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused.
-
Protects the rights of the absconding accused once they appear in court.
-
Ensures that the prosecution cannot misuse Section 299 CrPC to improve its case unfairly.
-
Emphasizes fair trial principles and safeguards against undue advantage to prosecution.