Ashish Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2234

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 53 of 2025

¶6

1 - 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, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

		... Respondent(s)
For Applicant	: Mr. Ishita Niyogi, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. NeerajSharma, Dy. A.G.

¶11

Hon’ble Justice Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

14/01/2025

¶14

The present CRR has been heard finally with the consent of the parties.

¶15

The present CRR has been filed under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 02/2017, whereby the learned Special Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) had rejected the

¶16

2

¶17

application filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and also issued nonbailable warrant against the applicant.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ramdhyan Sahu has made the written complaint in which he contended that in the year 2010, that Tulsi Ram Sahu, Chungu Ram Sahu and Dilip patel came to his village and told about the B.N. gold company and assured him that if he invests the money it will be doubled in 5 years. On their assurance the complainant has deposited the money to 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 therefore he lodged a written complaint before the Police Station, Bemetara, District- Bemetara. On the basis of written report, FIR had been registered initially against one of the main accused Sachin Damor and subsequently the Police Authority has filed the supplementary charge sheet in which the present applicant arrayed as a co-accused on 20.09.2021. After filing of the charge sheet against the applicant and other co-accused, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial. On 12.07.2022 the applicant was granted bail by the learned 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 Section 317 of Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law and it has been passed in an arbitrary manner and also without application of mind. 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. The applicant is a permanent resident of Indore (M.P.) and he has telephonically informed his counsel regarding his ill health.

¶20

Learned State Counsel raised an objection in regard to the submission made by the Counsel for the applicant.

¶21

3

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶23

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 the 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.

¶24

Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the revision petition, submission of learned counsel for the parties and further 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 medical prescription, i.e., Annexure A/4.

¶25

In view 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.

¶26

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

¶27

11.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.

¶28

( Arvind Kumar Verma )

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Madhurima

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

Sikandar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satguru Interpries Vs R.K. Ispat

Suraj Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Sinha @ Babu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivram Muriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Gupta Vs Shakuntala Vishwakarma