1 2025:CGHC:34619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2265 of 2025 1 - Lavkumar Pandey S/o Shyamlal Pandey Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Barpeladih, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhogilal Sagar S/o Jethuram Sagar, Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Barpeladih, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Respondent For petitioners : None For respondent /State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This is an office reference. 2. This Court, vide order dated 14.02.2024, passed in MCRC No. 8453 of 2023, while allowing the bail to the petitioner, namely, Lavkumar Pandey & Bhogilal Sagar had expressed its trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 20:18:00 +0530 2 preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, if there was no legal impediment. 3. Earlier on two occasions also, this Court had granted extension of time for compliance of the order dated 14.02.2024 4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.), vide his request letter dated 08.07.2025, has requested an extension of more time that the said date has been fixed for the appearance of accused Bhogilal. Arrest warrant has been issued against accused Bhogilal and the servicer has been made to serve the warrant. In this situation, a note was marked for the evidence of absconding. But the arrest warrant issued against the accused could not be executed and the person executing it did not appear for the evidence of absconding. After getting bail from 16/02/2024, the accused Bhogilal has been present for some time himself and some time through his advocate, but due to the absence of one of the two accused in each hearing in the case, the charge sheet could not be framed in the case. Due to the continuous absence of accused Bhogilal from 14/08/2024 in the case, it does not seem possible to conduct the trial of the case within the time limit prescribed by the order of the Hon'ble High Court. At this stage, notice has also been issued to his surety to ensure the presence of accused Bhogilal. Due to which this request is respectfully sent to the Hon'ble to extend the time limit for the disposal of this case. Since I received this case on 25/04/2025, the deadline had already expired before this, due to lack of information about the deadline, the request letter for extension of the deadline could not be sent, for which I apologize. Therefore, it is a humble request to you to kindly extend the time limit for resolving this issue. 5. Therefore, further time is sought by the trial Court to conclude the trial. 3 6. The request appears to be reasonable. The concerned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a further period of three months from today. 7. Accordingly, this CRMP stands disposed off with the aforesaid direction. 8. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav