-1- CGHC010384652026 2026:CGHC:42648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2555 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Dhruvanshi S/o Late Pawan Dhruvanshi, Aged About 25 Years R/o Berla, Ward No.07, Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Vikas Patel, S/o Ramkumar Patel, Aged About 22 Years R/o Berla, Ward No.07, Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 30/09/2026 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.09.2026, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by counsel for the petitioner seeking some other date in place of the dates fixed i.e. 23.10.2026 and 24.10.2026, for further recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.10.01 15:30:53 +0530 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the case was fixed for recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses on 08.09.2026, he was not aware with regard to date of pre-booked tickets and family function and therefore he could not make any prayer before learned trial Court on fixing of date as 23.10.2026 and 24.10.2026. After coming to his knowledge about the family programme and pre-booked tickets he immediately on the next date had submitted an application. However, application was rejected by trial Court . 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. One of the reason assigned by learned trial Court for dismissing the application is that on the date of submission of application seeking re-fixation of date of hearing of case (for date of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses) instead of 23.10.2026 and 24.10.2026, is that on the date of hearing of application, other counsels representing the other accused persons are not present. 5. Based on the observation made by learned trial Court, when this Court posed a question to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how many Advocates are appearing for accused persons, he submits that about 11 Advocates are representing different accused persons. 6. In the aforementioned facts of case and observation made by -3- learned trial Court, that except the Government Prosecutor, no other Advocate was present on the date of hearing of application submitted by petitioner i.e. 09.09.2026, I do not find any error or infirmity in the order impugned and therefore I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order. However, in facts of the case, where one of the reason assigned by learned trial Court in rejecting application is that other Advocates are not present, petitioner herein will be at liberty to file appropriate application on the date fixed by learned trial Court for appropriate order, if for any reason, counsel representing petitioner could not appear. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/--/-/---/-/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen