1 2025:CGHC:52778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2797 of 2025 1 - Marshal Rajpoot S/o Rakesh Kumar Rajpoot, Aged About 29 Years R/o Kripal Nagar, Supela, Kohka, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Superintendent Of Police, Dist- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - S.H.O. Police Station Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate on behalf of Shri T.K.Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 29/10/2025 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking appropriate directions against the inaction and delay on the part of the 2 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh in deciding the petitioner’s pending applicati9on for de-sealing/release of his bank account. 2. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in connection with Crime No. 0207/2024 registered at polcie station Dongargarh for the ofences punishable under Section 34(2) and 36 of the CG Excise (amendment) Act, 2002. The basis of implication of the petitioner is the memorandum statement of co-accused Mukesh Janghel. 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the learned JMFC despite conclusion of hearing, has failed to pass any order for over six months, thereby defeating the object of a fair and expeditious criminal trial. Hence, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may issue directions for early disposal of the pending application for release of the bank account. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s implication in the criminal case is solely based on the memorandum of the co- accused. It is argued that the freezing of the bank account has no nexus with the alleged offence and has been done without following due process. The continued sealing of the account has resulted in severe financial distress. It is further submitted that despite completion of arguments, the learned JMFC has not pronounced the order for an unduly long period, which amounts to a denial of justice. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a direction under Section 528 BNSS for expeditious disposal of his pending application. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the 3 trial court is already seized of the matter and the delay, if any, cannot be attributed to mala fides. It is contended that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy before the trial court and hence, no extra ordinary interference under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 BNSS is warranted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent that the application of the petitioner dated 25.10.2024 for defreezing of bank account is pending consideration before the learned JMFC Dongargarh. Though no explanation for the delay has been placed before this Court, the record shows that the matter is sub judice and within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. This Court, is therefore, not inclined to interfere on merits. However, the pendency of the application for such a long duration call for an appropriate direction to decide the application expeditiously. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to decide the petitioner’s pending application dated 25.10.2024 on merits expeditiously. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the issues are left open to be considered by the trial court. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.31 11:44:27 +0530