1 2026:CGHC:7554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 378 of 2026 1 - Yogesh Banjare S/o Shri Rameshwar Banjare Aged About 44 Years R/o In Front Of Bhagwat Bhawan, Kasdol, P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Vimal Ajay S/o Moharsai Aged About 25 Years R/o Naya Godha, Vill- Kasdol, P.S. And Tah. Kasdol, Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Vishal Sahu S/o Shri Ramesh Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Parasnagar Kasdol, P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Anil Kumar Ghritlahre S/o Dukaluram Ghritlahre Aged About 27 Years R/o Vill.- Charauda, Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Ravishankar @ Raju Jaiswal S/o Manaram Jaiswal Aged About 27 Years R/o Indira Colony Kasdol, P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Vijay Sahu S/o Late Shri Rambharosa Sahu Aged About 42 Years Vill.- Bagdevi Para, Kasdol, P.S. Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. Being aggrieved by the inordinate delay in disposal of Criminal Case No. 168/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara (C.G.), the above-named petitioner/complainant has preferred the ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, as referred to hereinabove. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the present case involves 18 prosecution witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined so far, resulting in inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial against respondent Nos.2 to 6, thereby defeating the object of a speedy trial. It is contended that the respondents frequently remained absent, leading to repeated adjournments, and despite examination of witnesses on 15.01.2025 and 15.12.2025, the next date for recording evidence has been fixed as late as 21.05.2026 without assigning any reasons. It is further submitted that such prolonged delays raise a reasonable apprehension of influence over prosecution witnesses, and continued adjournments may adversely affect the fairness of the trial by increasing the risk of tampering with evidence and may attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the prosecution has already completed a substantial part of the trial. It is further submitted that the delay, if any, in the proceedings cannot be said to be deliberate or attributable and the learned trial Court is conducting the trial in accordance with law. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted at this stage and the petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. As per the record, the complaint was registered and the challan was presented in the year 2023. Arguments on charge were heard on 12.05.2023, and the prosecution evidence is presently underway. Thereafter, the proceedings continued for securing the presence of the accused persons. At present, the trial is at the stage of recording of prosecution witnesses. There is no necessity to issue any further directions regarding the appearance of the accused. As per last order sheet of the tiral Court, the case is fixed for hearing on 21.05.2026. 6. Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) is engrafted to allow the High Court to intervene in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or where it is necessary to prevent injustice. It is not meant to manage the trial process and specific timelines for disposal. As the case is already fixed for hearing on 21.05.2026, therefore, I am not inclined to direct the trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial in a time bound manner. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena