1 2025:CGHC:14519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1076 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Thakur S/o Nand Keshwar Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Dandgaon, P.S.- Udaipur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Presently Resident Of Quarter No. 78-80/2/2a, Balco Nagar, Korba, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Law And Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Headquarters Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Surguja, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station Udaipur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - District Magistrate Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26/03/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of 2 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District- Sarguja C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 110/2019 whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application under Section 348 read with Section 94 of BNSS and closed the evidence to produce medical report of the petitioner’s father without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for his defense, which is against the law and the petitioner is seeking permission to appoint the commissioner to examination of petitioner’s father at his house. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner has made complaint to the concerned police authorities alleging that on account of incident occurred with the father of the petitioner namely Nand Keshwar Thakur, the petitioner lodged a written complaint and on the basis of the same, the police station Udaipur registered FIR No. 101/2018 dated 26.10.2018 for the offence under Section 294, 506, 323/34 of IPC against the accused namely, Sudama Sharma, Sushil Sharma, Pappu Sharma and others, however during the filing the charge sheet, the offence under Section 147, 148 and 307 of IPC have been added and subsequently submitted the charge sheet before the learned competent Court against the accused namely Sudama Sharma, Sushil Kumar, Neeraj Kumar @ Pappu, Vivek Kumar and Balram Thakur on 31.10.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 348 read with Section 94 of BNSS with intent that FIR has been registered on 26.10.2018 and actual incident occurred on 3 15.10.2018 when injured person Nandkeshwar Thakur received grievous injuries and he was admitted in Balco Hospital Korba from Udaipur Hospital for better treatment and in this regard, the doctor gave information to the local police authority P.S. Balconagar Korba C.G. and thereafter, ASI Rajendra Prasad Rathore recorded the statement of injured Nandkeshwar Thakur on 13.12.2018 and despite of that, the concerned police station Udaipur did not produce any documents of statement and medical report of the injured person Nandkeshwar Thakur while producing the charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 348 read with Section 94 of BNSS along with application under Section 248 of BNSS seeking direction for appointment of Commissioner to examine the injured Nandkeshwar Thakur at his house but the learned trial court vide its order dated 07.03.2025 has rejected the aforesaid application and closed the evidence to produce medical report of the petitioner’s father. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR was registered on 26.10.2018 whereas the incident occurred on 15.10.2018 and the injured Nandkeshwar Thakur received grievous injures and was admitted in Balco Hospital Korba from Udaipur hospital for better treatment. He further contended that the learned trial court should have adopted the liberal view while passing the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the 4 record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that no medical report of Nadnkeshwar Thakur has been filed by the petitioner before the trial court with regard to his ill health. Also, no medical certificate has been produced by the petitioner before the trial court which proves that the injured Nandkeshwar Thakur is paralysed and could not walk. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court rejecting to appoint Commissioner to record evidence of Nandkeshwar Thakur at his residence in Korba, is neither illegal nor perverse and does not suffer from jurisdictional error. 6. However, this Court observes that the petitioner may file an application before the trial court for recording evidence of Nandkeshwar Thakur through Video Conferencing with the help of concerned DLSA. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima