IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 309 of 2008 Anil Kshetri. …………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand. ………. Respondent Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the applicant / petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the respondent State. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. The learned counsel for the parties agree that this petition be disposed of today finally at the motion hearing stage itself. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order should be set aside because, in my considered opinion, PW2 Roop Singh deserves to be recalled for being further cross-examined. The impugned order accordingly is set aside. The respondent is directed to produce PW2 Roop Singh on recall for his further cross- examination by the accused-petitioner. The respondent State shall ensure that the witness is produced on recall either on the date already fixed in the trial or on any day in the month of June, 2008, whichever is earlier. The petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 20.05.2008 G