Ashish Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1987

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 47 of 2025

¶6

Ashish Gupta S/o Murli Prasad Gupta Aged About 41 Years Sakin Mahavir Palace, Flat No. 01 Scheme No. 54, Vijay Nagar, Indore, Police Station - Vijay Nagar, Distt - Indore Madhya Pradesh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer, Police Station - Nandghat, Tehsil - Nawagarh, Distt - Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Ms. Ishita Niyogi & Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocates For State-respondent Ms. Prabha Sharma, PL

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶13

13/01/2025

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶15

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Special Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.03/2018, whereby the learned Special Judge, Bemetara had

¶16

2

¶17

rejected the application filed under Section 317 of CrPC and also issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant.

¶18

Brief facts of this case are that the Complainant- Ram Snehi Baghel has made the written complaint in which he has contended that, in the year 2010, main accused Maakhan Satnami came to his village and told about the B.N. Gold company and assured him that if he invests the money it will be tripled in 5 years. On his assurance, the complainant has deposited the money with the Director of the B.N. Gold company. The complainant further contended in his written report that after completion of the time he did not get the money. Therefore, he made a complaint to the Directors of the B.N. Gold Company, but he has not received a single penny then he made a written complaint before the police Station Nandghat, Tehsil- Nawagarh, Distt- Bemetara. On the basis of written report, an FIR has been registered initially against one of the main accused Maakhan Satnami and subsequently the Police Authority has filed the supplementary charge-sheet in which the present applicant arrayed as co-accused.

¶19

After filing of the charge- sheet against the applicant and other coaccused, the trial Court proceeded with the trial. On 12-07-2022, the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court and after granting bail, the applicant continuously appeared before the Trial Court. On 08-11-2024, the case was fixed for framing of charges, but on that date due to ill health, the applicant moved an application through his counsel under

¶20

3

¶21

section 317 of Cr. P.C. for exemption from personal appearance. Since March 2024, the applicant is suffering from severe headache and other ailment and he is continuously taking treatment.

¶22

After hearing, the trial Court without appreciating the fact that the applicant is not able to come to the Court due to his ill health, rejected the application and issued the non-bailable warrant against the applicant. Hence, this revision.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is bad in law as it has been passed in an arbitrary manner. It is settled proposition of law that it is the discretion of the Court to exempt personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings, should be exercised Judiciously, properly and in consonance with interest of Justice, but in the present case the trial Court without appreciating the fact that due to the ill health the applicant was not able to come to the Court, therefore, in such circumstances, the application filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C ought to have been allowed. They further contended that from perusal of the impugned order dated 08-112024, it is crystal clear that the trial Court without any cogent and valid reason has rejected the application and issued the non-bailable warrant which is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. They further contended that the trial court ought to have been appreciated that the applicant is permanent residence of Indore (M.P.) and he has telephonically informed his counsel regarding his ill health. Thus, in

¶24

4

¶25

such circumstances, the learned trial court ought to have exempted personal appearance of the applicant and also should have granted time for filing the medical documents in this regard instead of issuing non- bailable warrant. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure A/1) and further be pleased to cancel the non- bailable warrant issued against the applicant, in the interest of justice.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

Perusal of the impugned order would show that after taking cognizance at the first instance, the trial Court has issued arrest warrant for appearance of applicant. The order purports that the trial Court has not recorded objective satisfaction as to necessity of the same, therefore, issuance of non-bailable warrant at the very inception to the applicant for his appearance would trench upon the personal liberty guaranteed to the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the revision petition, submission of learned counsel for the parties and further

¶30

5

¶31

considering the fact that the applicant is permanent residence of Indore (M.P.) and due to the ill- health, he could not appear before the trial Court on 08.11.2024 and in support thereof, he placed on record the medical prescriptions, i.e., Annexure A/4.

¶32

In veiw of the above, the part of the observation that the applicant should be produced by way of arrest warrant before the trial Court is set-aside and arrest warrant issued against the applicant is cancelled. It is observed that if the order of arrest warrant has been ordered to the State, the same shall not be executed.

¶33

Accordingly, the instant revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶34

However, it is directed to the revisioner/applicant that he shall appear before the concerned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and co-operate in the trial till its conclusion.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Digitally VASANT signed by KUMAR VASANT KUMAR

¶37

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶38

Vasant

Ashish Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Vs Smt. Tanu Kesharwani

Rambilas Jaiswal Vs Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal

Dr. Vipin Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sikandar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satguru Interpries Vs R.K. Ispat

Suraj Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh