1 CRA No.192/2016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.192/2016 Firoj Khan, S/o Sikander Khan aged about 30 years, occupation- Advocate R/o Ward No.07 Lalpur road Bagbahara Police Station Mahasamund, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1- Idarish S/o Ibraham aged 60 year 2- Hanif S/o Ibrahim aged 55 year 3- Wahid S/o Ibrahim aged 52 year All caste Musalman, R/o village House Ne D.N.C. 3 A 282, FFI area, Ambala Fariya nani Ruman, Kharabadi, Tahsil Badi Raman (Naniraman Kendra Shasit State Daman) 4- Abdul Kadar Khairani, S/o Dawood Abdul gani, Khairani aged about 65 years, occupation-Advocate R/o Mahasamund Civil Line Mamasamund, Police Station Mahasamund District Mahasamund, C.G. 5- State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station-Bagbahara, District:Mahasamund, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 07.08.2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.08 18:17:23 +0530 2 CRA No.192/2016 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed questioning the order dated 22/01/2016, by which, the application under Section 195, 340 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that mere mentioning application under Section 438 filed by the accused by stating as the 1st bail application does not require proceeding under Section 340 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial in Criminal Case No.212/2001, where the anticipatory bail application has been moved, has already been concluded and the accused persons have been acquitted from the said crime. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating the fact that the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved by the accused stating the same as the 1st bail application, whereas the same was 2nd bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order passed by the trial Court on the application moved by the complainant under Section 195, 340 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial Court by a reasoned order observing that the 1st bail application was moved on 02/01/2002 and after more than thirteen years, the 2nd bail application was moved and due to bona fide mistake, the 2nd bail application has been moved by mentioning the same as 1st bail application. Even the bail 3 CRA No.192/2016 application were moved by two different Advocates. The accused persons are from the other State i.e. Daman, hence, there is no illegality in the order passed the learned trial Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the order of the learned trial Court, pleadings and documents. 5. It appears from the fact that initially the 1st bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was moved on 02/01/2002, however, after thirteen years, the 2nd bail application was moved by the accused persons by engaging a other lawyer who had moved the 1st bail application and due to bona fide mistake, the 2nd bail application has been termed as 1st bail application and there was no ill intention behind mentioning of 2nd bail application as the 1st bail application. 6. The learned trial Court has appreciated the aforesaid fact and looking to the period of gap between the 1st and 2nd bail applications i.e. 13 years and same were filed by two different counsels, the learned trial Court observed that the act as alleged by the complainant is not attracting the proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and rejected the said complaint. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the trial has already been concluded, in which, the accused persons/respondents have been acquitted from the said trial on 07/02/2025. 4 CRA No.192/2016 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep/Shoaib