1 / 4 2025:CGHC:18794-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 232 of 2025 1 - XYZ ... Petitioner VICTIM versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station - Tilda Nevra, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Balkrishna Jangade S/o Late Brijlal Jangade 5 - Anjana Jangade W/o Balkrishna Jangade Both R/o Village Temari Thana Nandgath Distt. Bemetara Present Address H.I. G. 1/13, Pirada Housing Board Thana - Vidhansabha Distt. Raipur ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.26 11:44:56 +0530 2 / 4 25/04/2025 1. Heard Ms. Smita Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner, who is the rape victim, has come up before this Court with the following prayer:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the bail order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, and direct respondent no.4 to surrender and/or direct that he be taken into custody forthwith. 10.3 That this Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct that the trial be concluded within 3 months. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the prosecution case in brief is that on 15.03.2021 the petitioner was at home with her two children, after her husband had gone for duty at 10:00 am like usual. While the husband was doing field work, at around 12.45 pm the petitioner called her husband and told him while crying that an unknown person had entered the house, attacked her with a knife, and molested her, and asked him to come back immediately. Then the petitioner's husband immediately called his colleague Krishna Kumar Anurag (who is a witness in the case) 3 / 4 and informed him about the incident and went home. He saw that a lot of blood had been spilled in the hall, room, kitchen etc., and the victim's sari, petticoat etc. were also lying scattered. The victim was then rushed to Khushi Hospital, Tilda, for treatment; and thereafter the petitioner's husband went to the police station and lodged an FIR, and a report of offences committed by an unknown person under sections 307,354,454 of IPC was registered. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the other witnesses, who are yet to be examined and are the material witnesses and therefore, the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court on 31/01/2025 in M.Cr.C. No.917 of 2025, is required to be canceled. It is further argued that earlier three bail applications were dismissed by this Court and when there was no change in the circumstances except that the prosecutrix statement was recorded and wherein the prosecutrix has deposed against the accused. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate would submit that the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be allowed in this petition and the petition may be dismissed. 6. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the prayer made by the petitioner it makes it explicit that the first prayer has been made with regard to setting aside the bail order dated 31/01/2025 granted by the learned Single Judge whereby the accused i.e. Respondent No.4, was granted bail in 4 / 4 M.Cr.C. No.917 of 2025 and the copy of the order is annexed as Annexure P/2. The further prayer is made that the learned trial Court be directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within 03 months. 8. The reliefs which have been sought by the petitioner by way of the instant petition are not maintainable and the remedy for the same lies somewhere else not before this Court because the bail of which the petitioner is seeking cancellation has been granted by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the said prayer before this Court is not maintainable. Likewise the subsequent prayer for expedite the trial is also not maintainable in a writ petition and the petitioner has appropriate Court for seeking such a direction. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the Annexure P/1 after retaining photocopy of the same. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu