1 2026:CGHC:24274-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 307 of 2026 Shekh Javed S/o Shekh Lzrail, Aged About 38 Years R/o Premnagar, Ward No.26 Balaghat, Police Station-Balaghat, District Balaghat, (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station -Civil Line, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.18 10:43:23 +0530 2 petitioner. Also heard Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 16447/2024. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the learned trial court to forthwith refer the matter to the Under Trial Review Committee/Lok Adalat for consideration of discharge/acquittal of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent- State to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) or any other amount this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to the petitioner for the period of extra judicial custody beyond the maximum sentence imposable (i.e., beyond one year), along with interest at such rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent-State to release the petitioner forthwith in connection with Criminal Case No. 16447/2024 pending before the Chief Judicial 3 Magistrate, Bilaspur, if he is not required in any other case. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to conduct the proceedings on a day-to-day basis and conclude the trial forthwith in Criminal Case No. 16447/2024. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was registered at Police Station Civil Lines against the petitioner/accused, Sheikh Javed, for offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 09.12.2024 and charges under Sections 21(a) and 22(a) of the NDPS Act were framed on 18.03.2025. The petitioner’s bail application was rejected on 17.07.2025, however, by order dated 02.08.2025, the learned Trial Court allowed his application under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond and surety of Rs.10,000/- each. Since the petitioner did not furnish the requisite bond and surety, he continued to remain in judicial custody. Thereafter, on 29.04.2026, the petitioner moved an application seeking reference of his case to the Under Trial Review Committee/Lok Adalat on the ground that he had remained in custody since 26.10.2024, the offences alleged carried a maximum sentence of one year, and no prosecution witness had been examined 4 despite framing of charges. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.05.2026 observing that the petitioner had already been granted bail and could secure his release by furnishing the requisite bond and surety, but had failed to do so. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts, as the petitioner’s application seeking consideration of his case by the Under Trial Review Committee/Lok Adalat has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish a personal bond pursuant to the order granting bail under Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the remedy of release on bail and the prayer for consideration of the case under the UTRC mechanism operate in distinct fields and one cannot be made dependent upon the other. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 26.10.2024 and, as on the date of filing of the application on 29.04.2026, had already undergone incarceration of about eighteen months, whereas the offences alleged under Sections 21(a) and 22(a) of the NDPS Act are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-, or with both. Learned counsel would argue that despite charges having been framed on 18.03.2025, not a single prosecution witness had been examined till the filing of the application, thereby demonstrating complete stagnation of the trial and infringement 5 of the petitioner’s fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner’s reluctance to furnish a personal bond cannot be construed as a circumstance disentitling him from seeking substantive relief, particularly when he had already undergone a period of detention far exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offences. According to learned counsel, the learned Magistrate erroneously equated refusal to furnish a bond with absence of merit in the petitioner’s request and failed to consider the object underlying the constitution of Under Trial Review Committees, namely, prevention of prolonged and unjustified incarceration of undertrial prisoners. It is further argued that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period exceeding even the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon conviction and, therefore, his continued detention is manifestly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel submits that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 85 recognize that detention beyond the period authorized by law constitutes a serious constitutional wrong warranting judicial intervention. It is thus contended that the learned Magistrate acted with material irregularity in rejecting the application without examining the effect of the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, the inordinate delay in trial, the mandate of Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 and the broader constitutional requirement of ensuring fair, just and expeditious criminal 6 proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the facts of the present case, as he was already granted the benefit of release under Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 by order dated 02.08.2025, but deliberately chose not to furnish the requisite personal bond and surety despite being afforded an opportunity to secure his liberty. It is contended that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own refusal to comply with the conditions of the order granting bail and thereafter seek a direction for acquittal or any other substantive relief through the Under Trial Review Committee/Lok Adalat mechanism. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner is not a first-time offender and has criminal antecedents, including involvement in another case registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act in which, the quantity of contraband article seized was more than the commercial quantity, which disentitles him from claiming equitable relief on the ground of prolonged custody alone. It is argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner could have secured his release at any point of time by furnishing the requisite bond and, therefore, the continued incarceration cannot be attributed either to the prosecution or to the Court. It is thus submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 7 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is facing trial for offences carrying a limited sentence and that the proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period of time, it would be appropriate to direct expeditious conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to make all endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet