Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21956 (CHH)

NARESH VAISHNAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1450/2026 · 2026-06-17

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:24671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1450 of 2026 Naresh Vaishnav S/o Late Baldau Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Vijay Nagar, Awanti Vihar, Lane No. 3, P.S. Khamardih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... 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 18.06.2026 1. This is an office reference. 2. This Court, vide order dated 19.07.2024 passed in MCRC No. 3405 of 2024, while allowing the bail of the petitioner, namely, Naresh Vaishnav, 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 receipt of a certified copy of the order, if there was no legal impediment. 3. Earlier on two occasions also this Court had granted extension of time for compliance of the order dated 19.07.2024. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) vide his request letter dated 07.05.2026 has requested for grant of three month’s additional time for concluding the trial. 5. It transpires from perusal of the P.U.D. that the statements of seven prosecution witnesses have already been recorded, whereas the statements of four prosecution witnesses are still to be recorded. The record further reveals that summons/bailable warrants have been issued to the remaining witnesses through the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police from time to time to secure their presence. However, despite such efforts, their attendance could not be ensured. Since the evidence of four prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded, the learned trial Court has submitted that the trial cannot be concluded within the stipulated period. Accordingly, he sought an extension of time and has prayed for grant of a further period of three 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 three months from today. 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