1 2025:CGHC:60917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3795 of 2025 Prakash Patel S/o Jagdish Patel Aged About 33 Years (Aadhar No. 9983 4683 4638) R/o Navagadi Rajapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Jutemill, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sampatlal Chouhan S/o Late Shri Baratu Ram Chouhan Aged About 53 Years R/o Kedimuda, Thana Jutemill, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, 2 District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 80/2024, whereby the learned Trial Court has virtually recalled its order dated 04.12.2025 [whereby the summons for appearance of defence witnesses were issued] and now by virtue of impugned order dated 10.12.2025, the learned Trial Court has directed the petitioner to make available all the defence witnesses (which includes government officials) on his own, thereby denying the right to fair trial and right to adduce all the defence evidence. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 242/2024 registered at Police Station- Jutemill, District- Raigarh for offence punishable under Section 306 fo IPC. The deceased Prerna Chouhan was pursuing paramedical course in Apex Hospital and the petitioner herein was working as Lab Technician in Kirodimal Government Hospital, Raigarh. The petitioner who is also working in Kirodimal Government Hospital, Raigarh was extending financial help to deceased Prerna for pursuing her study. In the meanwhile, deceased Prerna had love affair with the petitioner despite knowing the fact that the petitioner is already a married person. Further, due to this affair, deceased Prerna was not going to Apex Hospital to attend her B.Sc. (Nursing) 1st year exam and was constantly talking with the petitioner over phone. Around two days before the date of incident, the factum of love affairs of the deceased came to 3 the knowledge of the petitioner’s wife and meeting took place amongst deceased, petitioner’s wife and the parents of the deceased. After the meeting, the father of the deceased told that he would manage his daughter and the petitioner and his wife should manage themselves. After two days, i.e. on 20.06.2024 at around 10:30-11:00 pm, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, the incident was reported to police station- Jutemill by complainant Sampatlal Chouhan and on his furnishing the information, merg intimation was recorded, wherein it was revealed that the petitioner pretending himself to be unmarried, had love affair with deceased, exploited her physically and mentally and thereafter denied to perform marriage with her, which ultimately led to such extreme step by the deceased. On 01.12.2025, all the prosecution witnesses were examined and on this day, for the first time the case was fixed for defense evidence on 04.12.2025. On 04.12.2025, the petitioner herein filed an application providing list of defense witnesses and also prayed for issuance of summons to the witnesses mentioned therein. Vide order dated 04.12.2025, the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an order directing for issuance of summons to the witnesses mentioned therein and posted the case for appearance of witnesses on 09.12.2025 and 10.12.2025. However, on date of appearance, i.e. 09.12.2025, only one witness appeared and he was 4 examined. On the next day, i.e. on 10.12.2025, none of the witnesses appeared before the trial Court and in such a scenario, the learned Court below instead of issuance of fresh summons to the witnesses, directed the petitioner to make them appear before the Learned Trial Court on 16.12.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 256 of BNSS deals with provisions of an accused to enter his defence and the procedure to be adopted by the Trial Court. He further submits that the learned court below completely failed to appreciate that the statutory provisions provide for mandatory issuance of summons/process for calling of a defence witness. He also submits that the instant facts would show that learned Trial Court was satisfied about the relevancy of said witnesses, as such, it issued summons vide order dated 04.12.2025 but for rhyme or reason, learned Trial court has denied issuance of fresh summons after non- appearance of defence witnesses. He further prayed to quash the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 80/2024. 4. Learned State counsel objected the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 04.12.2025, the learned Trial Court issued summons to the witnesses 5 mentioned therein and posted the case for appearance of witnesses on 09.12.2025 and 10.12.2025. However, on the date of appearance, i.e. 09.12.2025, only one witness appeared and he was examined. On the next day, i.e. on 10.12.2025, none of the witnesses appeared before the trial Court whereafter, the learned trial court directed the petitioner to make the defence witnesses appear before the Learned Trial Court on 16.12.2025. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that trial Court has failed to consider the aspect that most of the defence witnesses are government employees. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 66(1) of CrPC, 1973 provides as under: “Where the person summoned is in the active service of the Government, the Court issuing the summons shall ordinarily send it in duplicate to the head of the office in which such person is employed; and such head shall thereupon cause the summons to be served in the manner provided by section 62, and shall return it to the Court under his signature with the endorsement required by that section.” 9. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is not the duty of accused to produce defence who has been posted in government service. Therefore, the directions issued by the learned Trial Court suffers from legal infirmity and improper exercise of 6 jurisdiction. Such an order, if allowed to stand, is likely to prejudice the right of the accused to lead defence evidence in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 04.12.2025 is perverse and illegal and is hereby set- aside. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one defence witness Mr. Gaurishankar Patel has already been examined and since Mrs. Arti Patel is the wife of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner will produce her before the Court below at his own expense. 12. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) is directed to issue fresh summons to Mr. Shailesh Singh Thakur, Mr. Prakash Swai and Mr. Jai Patel and the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh is directed to ensure service of summons to the aforesaid three witnesses. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima