Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28042 (CHH)

TARAK DEVNATH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4863/2025 · 2025-06-24

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4863 of 2025 1 - Tarak Devnath S/o Shri Haripad Devnath Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Bande, Bazar Bande, Thana Bande, Tahsil Pakanjur District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Bande, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. This is second bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 23.02.2024 in connection with Crime No.16/2024 registered at Police Station Bande, District North Bastar Kanker for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 420,467, 468,471,120-B and 201 IPC. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit on 28.06.2024 in MCRC No.4048 of 2024. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in jail since 23.02.2024 and till date only two witnesses have been examined. Before the trial court the case has been adjourned repeatedly on the ground that applicant was not produced from jail and 2 therefore the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of trial getting delayed. 3. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that examination of witnesses are going on and today also the case is fixed before the trial court for recording evidence of the witness, therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail as there is no change in circumstances. 4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature and gravity of offence and also that recording of evidence is going on before the trial court, I do not find sufficient ground to admit this second bail application. However, the trial court is directed to conclude trial of the case as as early as possible. It is further made clear that the applicant shall be produced before the trial court on every date of hearing either in person or through video conferencing so that trial may not be delayed on that ground. 5. Accordingly, the second bail application also stands dismissed at motion stage. 6. A copy of this order be forwarded to learned trial court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder