Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21207 (CHH)

MANISH DUBEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1429/2026 · 2026-06-14

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:23767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1429 of 2026 Manish Dubey S/o Dinesh Dubey Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Devari Bhatapara P.S. Sipat District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through -The Police Station Sipat District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. This is an office reference. 2. This Court, vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5414 of 2024, while allowing the bail of the petitioner, namely, Manish Dubey had expressed its trust that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, if there was no legal impediment. 3. Earlier on one occasion also this Court had granted extension of time for compliance of the order dated 01.08.2024. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur District- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Bilaspur (C.G.) vide his request letter dated 30.04.2026 has requested for grant of two month’s additional time for concluding the trial. 5. It transpires from perusal of the P.U.D. that the present case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. The matter was received on transfer by the learned competent Court on 24.04.2026. The record further indicates that, due to the absence of the accused, a warrant of arrest had been issued against him on 26.11.2025 and his presence was ultimately secured on 28.03.2026. Since then, the case has been fixed for recording of prosecution evidence. It is further reflects that summons are being issued to the witnesses through the Superintendent of Police concerned, however, their presence could not be secured despite such issuance. As the evidence of two witnesses still remains to be recorded, the learned trial Court has sought extension of time and has prayed for grant of a further period of two months for concluding the trial and final disposal of the case. 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 two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 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 Kunal