1 2026:CGHC:26441-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1662 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Nahta S/o Mulchand Nahta Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. - 20 Opposite Mathai Hospital, Main Road - Dallirajhara, Police Station - Rajhara, Tahsil - Doundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. – of Police Station - Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Xyz (Details Mention With Separate Envelop) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.30 16:11:48 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be allow the instant CRMP petition & quash the FIR No. 96 of 2026, registered under Section 69, 351(3) of BNS, dated 26.04.2026, at Police Station – Rajhar, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, in the larger interest of justice.” 3. Upon perusal of the present petition, it transpires that the same is suffering from several defects/defaults as pointed out by the Registry of this Court. The petition has been drafted in a highly casual and careless manner. The order granting bail, though specifically referred to in the petition, has not been annexed. Even the spelling of the Court below has been wrongly mentioned in the petition. During the course of hearing, when a pointed query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the order granting bail had been annexed with the petition, learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the petition, which is reproduced below: “8. That, application was arrested by the Police and had granted bail by the learned Court bellow vide order dated 15.05.2026.” A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph itself demonstrates the casual manner in which the petition has been drafted. Not only does the paragraph contain apparent grammatical and typographical mistakes, but even the order granting bail, on the basis of which the present petition has been filed, has not been annexed with the petition. 3 4. It further transpires that the petition is also suffering from various defects/defaults as pointed out by the Registry, which have remained uncured. At this stage, after the defects were noticed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after curing all the defects. 5. Learned State counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 6. Having regard to the manner in which the present petition has been drafted and filed, and considering that the petitioner failed to remove the defects pointed out by the Registry and even omitted to annex the material document referred to in the petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petition has been pursued in a wholly casual manner, resulting in unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial time. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, if so advised, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- before the Registry of this Court. The receipt of such deposit shall be produced along with the fresh petition, if any. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Specialized Adoption Agency, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.). 7. Certified copies of the documents, if any, be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan