Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6820 (CHH)

RAJESH SHARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1072/2026 · 2026-04-19

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:17940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1072 of 2026 Rajesh Sharma S/o Santosh Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Kohka, Supela Ward No. 09, Street No. 07, Behind Agresan I.T.I. P.S. Supela District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Name Wrongly Mentioned In Annexure A1 Correct Name As Per Filed F.I.R.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Respondent For petitioners : None For respondent /State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.04.2026 1. This is an office reference. 2. This Court, vide order dated 25.09.2025, passed in MCRC No. 6252 of 2025, while allowing the bail to the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Sharma, had expressed its trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, if there was no legal impediment. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.21 18:15:32 +0530 2 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), vide letter dated 25.03.2026, has sought extension of time in compliance of the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCRC No. 6252 of 2025. It is stated that, out of a total of 9 prosecution witnesses, the examination of 7 witnesses has been completed, while the testimony of 2 witnesses is yet to be recorded. Out of the remaining witnesses, one is a material witness who could not be contacted, and despite being granted opportunity and being directed to remain present for cross-examination on the next date of hearing, has failed to appear. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has prayed for an extension of three months’ time to conclude the trial. 4. 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. 5. Accordingly, this CRMP stands disposed off with the aforesaid direction. 6. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-D/- Sd (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav